Tag Archive: Trump administration

Trump administration policy favors employer-sponsored coverage

In championing the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, the Obama administration held to a bedrock policy principle of preserving the employee benefit-based system that covers medical care costs for the vast majority of Americans under age 65. That would be the least disruptive to the current scheme and thus politically viable, the thinking went. The Affordable Care Act also reinforced the role of employer sponsored medical benefit plans by requiring employers of more than 50 to offer them to most of their employees and requiring small employer plans offer specified benefits.

Trump administration policy bolsters the role of employer group coverage even more, clearly favoring it over non-group. During the past year, it has reduced funding for outreach and enrollment for individual plans sold on state health benefit exchanges while promoting enrollment in the exchanges’ Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). Additionally, the administration has refused continued funding of subsidies to assist low income households with out of pocket costs for silver level individual plans sold on the exchanges.

Then on October 12 of this year, the administration issued an Executive Order directing federal regulatory agencies study three possible areas where employer-based coverage could be expanded by administrative rulemaking or agency guidance.

They include:

  • Expanding Association Health Plans to small employers and potentially based on industry or geographic regions. Some early analysis of this provision speculates that individuals who are self-employed with no staff could be included in the expansion, but it’s unclear whether sufficient statutory authority exists because such individuals are not employers. Initial analysis also warns that expanding these multi-employer plans could jeopardize the actuarial viability of non-group coverage.
  • Liberalizing rules governing employer-sponsored Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) to help offset employee costs for medical care, including premiums for non-group coverage. While this provision of the order recognizes a role for non-group coverage, it puts employers in a major role in sharing a portion of its costs for employees, impliedly recognizing the primacy of the employee-benefit coverage model for those under age 65.
  • Making short term medical insurance coverage for individuals available for longer than the current three months allowed under existing rules and on a renewable basis. Short term coverage tends to appeal to those between jobs and thus implicitly reinforces the dominant role of employment-based plans.
 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Congress holds trump card on exchange cost sharing reduction subsidies (pun intended)

In the coming weeks, the Trump administration will need to say clearly whether they plan to fund cost-sharing reductions — payments that reimburse insurers for providing discounted deductibles to low-income ObamaCare enrollees. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal Wednesday, Trump said he was considering withholding the payments to force Democrats to work with him on healthcare.

Source: Trump faces risky ObamaCare choice | TheHill

Actually Congress — and not the Trump administration — holds far more power to resolve the outstanding issue of funding for cost sharing reduction subsidies for plans sold on state health benefit exchanges that’s giving non-group health plan issuers heartburn as they prepare for plan year 2018.

First because the House of Representatives brought the underlying litigation over the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s funding of the subsidies. It as petitioner — and not the executive branch as respondent — can make the litigation go away by dropping it. A federal district court that decided the case in favor of the House last May put its ruling on hold, giving the House the option to drop the case.

Second because Congress holds the power of the purse. It ultimately decides whether funds for the subsidies are appropriated, not the administration.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Immediate ACA repeal rhetoric mooted as Trump administration issues rulemaking to reinforce law’s individual market reforms

With only about six weeks left to enact any comprehensive replacement for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Trump administration has sent a clear signal it won’t happen this year by introducing proposed rules today reinforcing the law’s individual insurance market reforms rather than a wholesale repeal of the omnibus statute. The Market Stabilization rulemaking is a confidence building measure aimed at calming nervous individual health plan issuers as they plan their market participation for 2018 amid worries over adverse selection.

The rulemaking comes just 10 days after President Trump said in a televised interview his administration’s comprehensive successor to the Affordable Care Act would take the rest of 2017 and likely into next year to finalize and move through Congress. That’s realistic considering the Affordable Care Act contains ten titles and runs more than 2,000 pages. It will take time to determine which to keep, which to amend and which to eliminate — and attract sufficient support from across the aisle for any overhaul.

The proposed rule would more closely conform individual coverage to employer-sponsored and Medicare coverage by establishing the plan year 2018 open enrollment period as November 1 to December 15, 2017. The rulemaking would require those seeking to enroll outside this period to provide documented evidence of life events such as a change in family status or loss of employer sponsored coverage. It also would make it easier for health plan issuers to collect lapsed premium payments upon renewal, liberalizes the actuarial value definitions of all but silver plans as well as network adequacy standards.

The proposed rule also indicates the federal government plans to revise the timeline for the certification of qualified health plans (QHPs) sold on state health benefit exchanges and rate review process for plan year 2018. “In light of the need for issuers to make modifications to their products and applications to accommodate the changes proposed in this rule, should they be finalized, we would issue separate guidance to update the QHP certification calendar and the rate review submission deadlines to give additional time for issuers to develop, and states to review, form and rate filings for the 2018 plan year that reflect these changes,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) stated. Comment on the proposed rule is due March 7, 2017.

The issuance of the proposed rule renders moot campaign rhetoric leading up to the November 2016 elections to immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act and highlights the lack of a ready Republican plan to replace the law. The party’s opposition is less about genuine policy differences but more about ongoing hard feelings arising from the process (versus substance) of the Affordable Care Act’s enactment in early 2010 that essentially steamrolled then minority Republicans. With no clearly articulated GOP policy alternative, there cannot be a true policy debate.

Congress and the administration have incentive to back off the immediate repeal talk given the likelihood they’d face political blow back from payers and providers vexed by the enormous uncertainty of gutting the law without a clear replacement as well as constituents fearing their coverage might be disrupted. The political consequences of inchoate policy outweigh any immediate policymaking in Congress, particularly since unhappy voters could punish some members of Congress in the 2018 mid-term elections.

In addition to this proposed rule, expect Congress to make a rapid appropriation to stave off another issue threatening the stability of the individual market stemming from ongoing hard feelings over the law’s enactment its implementation by the Obama administration: House v. Burwell. An appropriation is necessary because a federal court ruled in that case funding for out of pocket cost sharing subsidies for low income households purchasing silver plans on state health benefit exchanges requires an appropriation by Congress and that the required appropriation is absent. The House of Representatives challenged the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s funding of the subsidies without an explicit appropriation by Congress. Implementation of the federal court ruling is on hold until at least this month as it’s not expected the Trump administration will pursue an appeal.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

What Trumpcare will likely look like

Donald Trump is following the path of every president elected before him from at least the Truman administration forward, proclaiming a public policy goal of providing medical insurance to all Americans. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” the soon to be president told The Washington Post last week. “It will be in a much simplified form,” he said. “Much less expensive and much better” than what’s available under the Affordable Care Act.

How will Trump bring that about? Wryly playing off then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s famous statement in early 2010 that opponents of the Affordable Care Act would have to first vote for it in order to see all of its provisions, Trump similarly wants to see his Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Tom Price confirmed by the Senate before he reveals his plan.

I’ll go out on a limb and make some predictions on the rough outlines. This prediction assumes Trump will forge his own policy in this area and not necessarily conform to longstanding Republican principles that were posted to his transition website but have since been taken down. Trump’s reform plan won’t be a wholesale repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It will at least initially keep much of the omnibus reform statute intact and concentrate on scrapping Titles I and II dealing with the individual market reforms and expanded Medicaid eligibility to single adults given these components of the law have dominated the Republican reform agenda.

The Trump administration’s plan will give up on trying to make the problematic and inherently unstable individual market as it’s currently structured work with a mix of incentives and disincentives like those of the Affordable Care Act. The Trump plan will likely largely replace the nongroup market with something ironically along the lines of what Affordable Care Act designer Ezekiel Emanuel suggested last week: automatic enrollment in a catastrophic plan. Trump’s plan could offer a level of basic coverage for all working age Americans, starting when the reach their 18th birthday and lasting until they go onto Medicare at age 65 or older. As per Emanuel’s concept, there would be an option to enroll in supplemental plans for those who need or desire more generous coverage, similar to Medicare advantage plans. Most of the funding would come from new payroll and self-employment taxes. These supplemental plans could conceivably comport with Trump’s statement that his plan would offer low deductibles.

This reform of the nongroup market would also pave the way for a gradual transition away from employer-sponsored group plans. Employers would fund the aforementioned supplemental plans as an employee benefit. Or not. Either way, the dominance of employer-sponsored all inclusive medical coverage – which also dates to the Truman administration – would begin to go into decline.

As Trump stated previously, his plan will end the Title II Medicaid reforms and turn Medicaid into a state block grant program. Health savings accounts contribution limits will be increased and contributions permitted to cover supplemental plan premiums and any uncovered medical or dental expenses.

Finally, look for Trump’s plan to focus strongly on prescription drug costs to bend the medical care cost curve, creating a bidding entity or even a federal monopsony that will effectively set the prices of medications for all government programs, including the new basic health plan. Trump indicated in a news conference last week he will play hardball with the pharmaceutical industry.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Trump Promises On Health Insurance Appealed To Family Struggling With Cost : Shots – Health News : NPR

Source: Trump Promises On Health Insurance Appealed To Family Struggling With Cost : Shots – Health News : NPR

Pocketbook issues can determine the outcome of elections. In this case, National Public Radio did a piece today profiling a young Pennsylvania family that perceives it is getting poor value in the individual health insurance market. They are among what I dubbed a few years back as the 401 percenters, households who earn more than 400 percent of federal poverty levels and thus ineligible for premium and cost sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Premiums for catastrophic coverage with high deductibles appear to this family more in line with those one might expect for a very generous plan with little or no out pocket costs. That’s the economic disconnect and sense of unfairness that Trump tapped into and was likely a major issue in his victory over Hillary Clinton. In 2013, I predicted the 401 percenters could seek political redress, feeling the Affordable Care Act has left them worse off than before. In 2016, at least a sizeable portion of that voter cohort did just that, donning red Trump hats and voting for what they hope will be a better deal under a Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether Trump and the new Congress can deliver one.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

New Washington regime seeks to move from managed competition to more unfettered health care markets

Republicans take the reins of the federal government next month and are generally expected to repeal or at least revamp the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to harness market forces and competition to achieve the triple aim of better health care outcomes and patient satisfaction while lowering costs. Instead of the managed competition of the Affordable Care Act that put in place rules on the sell and buy sides of the health insurance market to promote competition and established government run markets for small group and individual coverage, the incoming Trump administration and new Congress will favor less managed competition with fewer market rules and constraints.

Achieving such a market environment is an enormous challenge given the heavily siloed health care system, with each silo having its own complex microeconomics. Cast as a market, health care has the essential element of many sellers and many consumers. Buyers ultimately drive the economics of all markets and determine their long term viability. But consumers generally don’t deal directly with health care providers given the large role of public and commercial health plans and employers. For the most part, people don’t plan to use health care, only doing so when accident or illness strikes. That precludes time for deliberate, considered comparison of providers and costs to determine the best value. Instead, consumers must deal with difficult to decipher bills filled with multiple, incremental charges after they consume health care services.

True market competition cannot function ex post facto transaction without some intermediary to negotiate terms and conditions on behalf of consumers. It remains to be seen how the new administration and Congress will finesse the complex microeconomics of health care as they seek to harness competitive forces to lower costs without resorting to even more extensive reforms than under the Affordable Care Act.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Action on ACA individual market reforms successor must come in Q1 2017 to avoid messy market meltdown

Heading into this year’s elections, the individual health insurance market segment developed signs of instability as health plan issuers were pulling back their market presence for 2017 and reassessing their plans for 2018 and beyond. The election that sent Donald Trump headed to the presidency and afforded his party the opportunity to implement their stated policy to quickly repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act piled uncertainty on top of uncertainty for health plan issuers.

It’s unclear how much of the Affordable Care Act the incoming Trump administration and Congress will gut. However, it is clear that first in their sights are the individual health insurance market reforms contained in Title I of the expansive law. With these reforms first in line for the chopping block, there is no luxury of time to contemplate a gradual transition for the individual market. Congress and the new administration will have to quickly come to a consensus in the first quarter of next year.

As has been widely reported, Congress and the Trump administration could defund the bulk of the reforms using a budget reconciliation bill requiring a simple majority vote, thereby avoiding a Democratic filibuster. But that would only create more market uncertainty, crashing the old Affordable Care Act market rules before new ones could be put in place. Even more comes from the House’s successful court challenge this year of the Obama administration’s funding of out of pocket cost sharing subsidies for many lower income households buying coverage on state health benefit exchanges. It would take effect very early in the Trump administration if the administration as expected opts not to pursue an appeal, prompting health plan issuers to bail from state health benefit exchanges in 2017 and leave millions without coverage. These circumstances underscore the fact that under the Affordable Care Act, health plan market participation is voluntary. If plan issuers can’t predict their finances with any degree of certainty, all bets are off.

Health plan issuers need to begin pulling together their individual market offerings for plan year 2018 early next year. It will be difficult if not impossible for them to do so with the market rules up in the air. Lacking any certainty in the first quarter of 2017, a transition to a new scheme won’t happen in 2018. New policy will have to be nailed down in that critical first quarter. With the Affordable Care Act individual market rules well established, it’s now impossible to quickly unscramble the Obamacare omelet and turn the calendar back to 2009.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Microeconomic mismatch undermines concept of interstate health insurance market for non-integrated plan issuers

Creating an interstate market for individual health insurance is a component of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s healthcare policy. “To maximize choice and create a dynamic market for health insurance, the Administration will work with Congress to enable people to purchase insurance across state lines,” according to the Trump administration’s transition website.

The concept’s not new. It’s been around for decades as a reform element favored by conservative health policy wonks. It’s even baked into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Section 1333 of the law provides a mechanism for health insurers and plans to pool risk and sell across state lines via “health care choice compacts” starting this year. The provision allows two or more states to enter into an agreement under which health plans could be offered in state individual markets but subject to regulation by the state in which the plan was written or issued. The Affordable Care Act even provides for interstate health benefit exchanges. Section 1311(f) provides for “Regional or Other Interstate Exchanges” operating in more than one state with federal government approval.

On its face, enabling the marketing of health insurance across state lines appears appealing. After all, insurance is all about large numbers — and the bigger the better. More people in multiple states covered in health plans translates to enhanced spread of risk and potentially operating economies of scale. It’s a particularly appealing reform as individual health plan issuers worry about adverse selection, particularly in less populous states and those with poorer population health status. With health plan issuers able to offer plans in multiple states, the buy side of the market also benefits with more competition and consumer choice, proponents contend.

But undermining the concept is a microeconomic mismatch. Health coverage is far more portable than provider networks, which are geographically fixed by metropolitan areas and the brick and mortar physician offices, clinics and hospitals within them. Provider charges are not uniform, varying considerably from one metro area to another, even within a given state. Health plan issuers negotiate locally with providers because nearly all health care is provided locally and not across state lines except for those living near state borders.

An interstate model currently only favors integrated health plans such as California-based Kaiser Permanente and Molina Healthcare, which each operate health care facilities in a half dozen states and have fared better in the state health benefit marketplace environment than traditional non-integrated health plans.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Individual health insurance segment will continue to face existential crisis post-election

Source: Health Affairs Blog. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/02/08/the-marketplace-premiums-increase-underwriting-cycle-or-death-spiral/

 

Regardless of what the incoming Trump administration and Congress opt to do with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s reforms of the individual health insurance market, the segment will continue to face an existential crisis. The individual market remains the problem stepchild of health coverage, playing an important but relatively minor role in a siloed scheme dominated by employer sponsored coverage for a solid majority of those under age 65 and the big government entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid for most of the rest. Not to mention the other integrated government run care systems for active duty military members and their dependents and military veterans.

Given its place in the overall scheme of things, individual health insurance is the remainder market of last resort for those not covered by the dominant private and public systems. It functions as a high turnover, temporary segment that’s inherently unstable. People move in and out of coverage due to changing life circumstances or obtaining eligibility for coverage under one of the dominant systems. Others possess a deeply ingrained “culture of coping” as some have termed it to get medical care where it’s the most easily accessible and affordable such as hospital emergency departments, community clinics and free care events. That coping culture includes avoiding paying for individual health insurance, a pattern in place decades before the Affordable Care Act’s individual market reforms went into effect in 2014. It’s not going to be changed quickly even as health plan issuers are required to accept all applicants without regard to medical history and the law provides subsidies for premiums and out of pocket expenses to low and moderate income households.

That instability makes it very challenging for the basic insurance principle of risk spreading since the risk being insured against is highly dynamic. Actuaries base their projections on relatively stable risk pools and flows of premium dollars into the pool. As long as “covered lives” are moving in and out of the individual market, that desired actuarial predictability will remain elusive, the Affordable Care Act’s carrots and sticks aimed at stabilizing the pool notwithstanding.

As policymakers reassess the Affordable Care Act health insurance market reforms in the post-election period, they might well reexamine an assumption of the law that small group coverage would be eclipsed by the reformed individual market. It was expected that by making individual market coverage more like small group coverage by establishing small group plans as benchmark plans, that along with the individual market reforms would drive more people into individual coverage.

It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Even though the Affordable Care Act does not mandate they do so, small employers are continuing to offer group coverage, albeit less generous than the recent past and more akin to major medical, catastrophic plans with high deductibles. If they are offered coverage under them, employees have little incentive to enroll in individual coverage since they would not qualify for subsidized coverage sold on state health benefit exchanges.

That circumstance reduces the potential size of the individual segment and in so doing, degrades the individual market risk pool. While the Obama administration’s health insurance reforms are based on keeping employer-sponsored health benefits as the bedrock of coverage for most pre-retirement Americans, they also were aimed at revitalizing the struggling individual market. Given that employer-sponsored coverage cuts against a robust individual health insurance space, it may not be possible to have both.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Killing the ACA individual health insurance market reforms softly

If they so choose, the incoming Trump administration and new Congress could begin quickly unwinding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s individual health insurance market reforms without taking any affirmative action to do so. The reason is the House of Representatives prevailed earlier this year in United States House of Representatives v. Burwell in which the House challenged the outgoing Obama administration’s funding of out of pocket cost sharing subsidies under Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act. That section provides for supplemental subsidies in addition to advance premium tax credits for households earning between 100 and 250 percent of federal poverty levels. The additional subsidies limit out of pocket costs for households at that income level enrolling in silver level qualified health plans offered on state health benefit exchanges. In House of Representatives, plaintiffs argue funding of the cost sharing subsidies is not a continuing appropriation and thus requires an annual appropriation as part of the federal budget.

In a ruling issued May 12, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer agreed, finding the supplemental cost sharing subsidies must be annually appropriated, but leaving them in place pending the Obama administration’s appeal. If the Trump administration opts not to move forward with the Obama administration’s appeal of Collyer’s decision, the ruling stands with immediate effect.

The cost sharing subsidies effectively increase the actuarial value of silver plans that cover on average 70 percent of medical care costs up to the annual out of pocket limit to a higher percentage. Without funding for the cost sharing subsidies, health plan issuers in state health benefit exchanges would be forced to take a bath since calculated premiums would not account for the higher actuarial value of silver plans with cost sharing subsidies. Already leery of higher than expected medical costs and concerned over the potential of adverse selection among exchange plans, the loss of federal funding for the cost sharing subsidies would likely send health plan issuers running for the exits and potentially seeking relief from enforcement of Section 1402. To avoid the pandemonium that would roil the exchanges, plans might pressure Congress and the new administration to appropriate stopgap funding to give policymakers time to reassess the options for plan year 2018 as part of an orderly transition to enact the incoming Trump administration’s avowed repeal of some or all of the Affordable Care Act.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

%d bloggers like this: