Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Republicans Can Seize a Political Opportunity by Backing Student Loan Reform

Allan Collinge is the founder of the Student Loan Justice Organization a grassroots citizen’s organization dedicated to returning standard consumer protections to student loans. The group was started in March of 2005 and has focused primarily on research, media outreach, and grassroots lobbying initiatives. located in Washington DC. From time to time Angry Bear has publicized Allan efforts to restore bankruptcy protection for student loan.

In a rare display of political courage and bipartisanship last week, Rep. John Katko (R-NY) filed the Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act with Rep. John Delaney (D-MD). This bill will return standard bankruptcy protections to all federal and private student loans. Katko is well ahead of the conservative curve on this issue and has a unique opportunity to revitalize the Republican Party in the current session by stepping up to lead the fight on this issue.

President Obama federalized the student loan system during his eight years in office and the nation’s student debt tab increased by $1 trillion. From these student loans, the federal government profits well over $50 billion annually from the student loan program, and also makes a profit on defaulted student loans. This is something no other lender of any loan in this country can claim. In fact, this is a defining hallmark of a predatory lending system. During the same time period, the price of college rose far faster than any other commodity, including healthcare, and this trend is continuing to accelerate today.

The student loan program is a structurally predatory lending system and Uncle Sam sits atop the hornet’s nest. What has caused this hyper-inflationary lending behemoth and its consequences is the fact that the Department of Education is not constrained by standard free-market protections like bankruptcy rights, statutes of limitations, and other standard protections existing for every other type of loan. Congress stripped these protections from student loans and in the end greatly destabilized the entire loan system.

Make no mistake: The Department of Education loves this freedom from free-market protections and fights tooth and nail behind the scenes to keep bankruptcy gone from its source of income. Since Trump was elected, the student loan swamp of unelected bureaucrats in and around the Department of Education have made bold moves to make this lending system harsher and more profitable.

Some true conservatives have noticed this problem and have begun to speak out. Jeb Bush, for example, put the return of bankruptcy protections to student loans as a plank in his presidential platform. Pundits and think tanks such as David Brooks and the Cato Institute have also publicly called for the return of bankruptcy protections to student loans. The issue screams out to conservatives for justice by sponsoring the Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act. By his actions, Congressman Katko is demonstrating to his colleagues that it’s fine, in fact,it is a great political benefit to stand up for the citizens, fight for free-market mechanisms, and against big government.

Sponsoring this bill will endear Katko to tens of thousands of Democratic voters who would have otherwise voted against him next year. There are roughly 100,000 people in his district with student loans, of which 63,000 are currently unable to pay down their loans.

While few of these voters would ultimately file for bankruptcy, all of them feel the predatory weight of the lending system on their backs, and all will appreciate having this constitutionally mandated power back on their side. I suspect that a large majority of these voters — regardless of party — will be strongly compelled to vote for him based upon this issue alone because it is that strongly held by these borrowers.

What is most interesting is that even if his Democratic challengers’ parrot Katko on this issue, his being a Republican makes the chances for success of the bill go up dramatically. No Democrat with the same position can claim this, and indeed we have seen similar Democrat bills flounder and fail in years past.

This is one of the hottest issues today in Congress and Congressman Katko is in the forefront of it with his bill. Other Republicans in Congress could benefit and capitalize on it to reduce the strong headwinds from Democrats in next year’s election. Republicans could do well in supporting this bill and avoid a crushing defeat.

Tags: , Comments (1) | |

Dean Baker’s Articles on Healthcare

Barkley has mentioned this particular article several times now. I would be negligent if I did not post a link to it so we could read it. New Health Care Plan: Open Source Drugs, Immigrant Doctors, and a Public Option, 25 March 2017, CEPR, Beat The Press, Dean Baker.

There are two obvious directions to go to get costs down for low- and middle-income families. One is to increase taxes on the wealthy. The other is to reduce the cost of health care. The latter is likely the more promising option, especially since we have such a vast amount of waste in our system. The three obvious routes are lower prices for prescription drugs and medical equipment, reducing the pay of doctors, and savings on administrative costs from having Medicare offer an insurance plan in the exchanges.

This short article is worthy of a read also. Why Do Proponents of More Immigration Never Mention Doctors? 08 February 2017, CEPR, Beat The Press, Dean Baker.

If we got the pay of our doctors down to the levels in other wealthy countries it could save us close to $100 billion a year.

More on Healthcare to follow.

Tags: , Comments (22) | |

Medicare does “NOT PAY FOR ITSELF”

In the comments section of an earlier post (1/3 of Medicare is Wasted), Maggie Mahar had stated to everyone; “Medicare Does Not Pay for Itself.” This is what I meant by that comment:

“For more than a decade the the federal government has borrowed to pay for the rising cost of Medicare. Debt-financing of Medicare will increase sharply as the population over 65 doubles from 2010 to 2030 and the number of beneficiaries over 85—with the greatest medical needs—triple.”

Note, using borrowed money to finance Medicare is not something happening in the future as it began more than a decade ago. Yet, as the article notes: “Members of Congress are reluctant to argue with constituents who sincerely believe that they have ‘paid for’ Medicare with payroll taxes and premiums. Most find it more convenient to tiptoe around the minefield of Medicare financings.” So the charade continues even today.

People who believe that they have paid for their Medicare with payroll taxes and premiums are terribly naïve and do not realize how much Medicare actually costs or how much “Medicare for all” would cost.

The article goes on to explain the history of how we arrived where we are today and why I make the comment on Medicare:

“In the mid-1990s, Democrats proposed to balance the Medicare budget by limiting fees paid to physicians for services, while Republicans sought to contain the costs by transferring the program to managed care insurers and capping the annual per capita rise in premium subsidies.

In 1997 the leadership in both parties agreed to a plan that would eliminate borrowing for Medicare, principally by limiting the growth in the level of fees paid to physicians. That Medicare reform, along with increasing general revenues paid by taxpayers in the highest bracket, led to a federal budget that balanced in fiscal year 2000.

The balance turned out to be short-lived. In 2001 and 2003 Congress passed debt-financed reductions in income tax rates. And in 2003 it also suspended the application of ceilings on fees set in 1997. Later that year Congress used debt to finance a new Medicare prescription drug benefit and higher payments to Medicare managed care plans.

As a result, the portion of Medicare paid for with dedicated taxes dropped from 73 percent in 2000 to 53 percent in 2010, the year that the first of the Baby Boom generation became eligible for Medicare.”

“After the 2008 election of President Obama, Democrats sought Medicare ‘savings’ for the purpose of expanding other medical services rather than balancing the budget for Medicare. In order to offset the cost of expanded PPACA medical services for families with low incomes; they placed restrictions on reimbursement rates, provided incentives for more efficient delivery of medical care, raised the Medicare tax paid by taxpayers with high-earned incomes, and applied Medicare taxation to gains from investment.”

On the other side of the political spectrum, “Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan exemplifies his party’s ambivalence toward Medicare reform. He ran as the vice presidential candidate on a ticket in 2012 that attacked the Affordable Care Act’s limits on Medicare reimbursements. Yet before and after that election, he incorporated those very cost-saving measures into his own budget plans.”

Incumbents from “both parties find it awkward to even talk about the practice of borrowing to pay for Medicare. Obviously, an extra layer of interest on debt simply increases the program’s long-term cost. Any attempt to highlight that issue naturally invites the question of whether to cut Medicare costs or raise tax revenue dedicated to the program. No mainstream politician seeks to cut benefits by almost half and down to the level payable by revenues from premiums and payroll taxes. Democrats condemn any increase in payroll taxation as ‘regressive,’ while most congressional Republicans have signed a pledge to oppose any tax increase.”

Both sides of the aisle feint a reluctance to either cut Medicare benefits or increase Medicare withholding taxes and an honest discussion with their constituents regarding Medicare financing knowing full well something must be done. Indeed, it is politically expedient to kick the can or the bucket into the next decade avoiding the third rail of Medicare.

What can we do? I will answer that question in my next post.

Notes and References:
1. “Pay As You Go Medicare” Washington Monthly, Bill White, June 23, 2014

2. Maggie Mahar writes the Health Beat Blog Maggie is also the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006). Mahar also served as the co-writer of the documentary, Money-Driven Medicine (2009), directed by Andrew Fredericks and produced by Alex Gibney. Before she began writing about health care, Mahar was a financial journalist and wrote for Barron’s, Time Inc., The New York Times, and other publications. Her first book, Bull: A History of the Boom and Bust 1982-2003 (Harper Collins, 2003) was recommended by Warren Buffet in Berkshire Hathaway’s annual report.

Tags: , Comments (31) | |

1/3 of Medicare Spending is Wasted

This was initially posted at Angry Bear September 14, 2014 by Maggie Mahar of Health Beat A little history: Dan and I invited Maggie Mahar to write at Angry Bear Blog as I was covering much of the Healthcare debate and Maggie could add much more in-depth knowledge and analysis of healthcare than I could. This is an important post as it gets down to the nitty-gritty of Medicare-For-All, things we need to know, and why it may not work.

Maggie Mahar in answer to a commenter:

You write: “That claim that one-third of Medicare spending is wasted sounds pretty questionable to me.”

This is your opinion. If you had spent the last 20 years working as a medical researcher investigating unnecessary treatment, your opinion would be of great interest to all of us; but, I’m assuming you have not done so.

Thus, you might be interested in some facts . . .

Dr. Donald Berwick, who headed up Medicare and Medicaid during the 1st half of the Obama administration has said, repeatedly, that at least 1/3 of Medicare dollars were wasted on unnecessary tests, procedures and drugs that provide no benefit for the patient. He is only one of dozens of health policy experts who have made the same statement. (Google “Health Affairs” the leading medical journal that focuses on health policy and “unnecessary treatments” Over the past 30 years, researchers at Dartmouth have provided stacks of evidence documenting unnecessary care in the U.S.

You also write: “I doubt that treatment protocols in the U.S. are all that different from other countries.”

Again, this is your opinion. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

In other countries, doctors and hospitals tend to follow evidence-based guidelines. In the U.S. a great many doctors object to the idea of someone telling them how to practice medicine even though that “someone is “science”. They value their autonomy and prefer to do things the way they have always done them. Of course this is not true of all doctors; but even when you look at protocols at our academic medical centers, you find that the way they treat similar patients varies widely.

Here, I’m not talking about how much they charge for a procedure (which also varies widely) but how many tests they order, how often they prescribe spine surgery for someone suffering from low-back pain, how often they tell a woman she needs a C-Section . . .

One big problem is that our doctors and hospitals are paid on a “fee – for service basis;” in other words, the more they do, the more they are paid.

As Dartmouth’s Dr. Eliot Fisher points out: “U.S. patients are not hospitalized more often than patients in other countries; but in the U.S., a lot more happens to you while you’re there.”

In addition, traditionally our medical schools have trained doctors to practice very aggressive medicine. The resident who orders a battery of tests is praised. Students are told “Don’t just sit there (and think). Do Something!” Traditionally, our medical culture has been a very macho culture and it is just beginning to change.

Finally, Americans tend to think that “more is always better.” Larger servings in a restaurant, bigger cars, bigger homes, etc. And when it comes to healthcare, patients in the U.S. tend to think that “more care is better care.” They are wrong. Every medical product and service carries some risk. If it provides no or little benefit, the patient is exposed to risk without benefit.

When medical protocols in the U.S. are compared to how medicine is practiced in other countries, researchers have found: —- Much unnecessary spine surgery. The rate of back surgery in the U.S. is five times higher than in the UK. Studies have shown little difference in long-term outcomes for patients who undergo back surgery compared to those who select non-surgical treatment.

The U.S. does more testing than other countries. For instance, the number of MRI and CT tests for every 1,000 people in 2010 was double the average in other OECD countries. Comparatively, there were also more tonsillectomies, caesarean sections and knee replacements. Regardless of how much more, nearly every procedure, scan and drug costs; it’s nothing compared to how out-of-whack the medical heroics thrown at Americans in the last stages of life The Cost of Health Care: A Country-by-Country Comparison

Colonoscopies are prescribed and performed more frequently than medical guidelines recommend and are given preference over less invasive tests that screen for colon cancer. Those less invasive tests are not only routinely performed in other countries, they’ve also been proven to be just as effective by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force.

“We’ve defaulted to by far the most expensive option, without much if any data to support it,” said Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

In the U.S. many more patients die in ICU’s getting futile care. This is a painful, lonely way to die. In other countries, more patients are treated in hospices or allowed to go home where nurses and even doctors visit them.

Half of all heart surgeries (using stents) do no good. We know which half! But stent-makers and other providers have turned this into a big business.

- Our drug companies enjoy 20% profit margins.

- Our device-makers boast 16% profit margins.

We are over-medicated (particularly older people), and undergo too many surgeries that involve very expensive devices. Medicare covers virtually everything (even drugs that have been shown to be dangerous–until they are taken off the market). If it does not cover all of the newest treatments and products lobbyists would howl– and Congress makes sure that heads roll.

This is one reason why we don’t want to give everyone 40 to 65 a chance to enroll in Medicare. No one could afford it. (This idea was considered in the late 1990s. Do you have any idea how much 40-65 year olds would have to pay for our extraordinarily inefficient and wasteful Medicare system? On top of that and like people over 65, they would have to pay hefty sums for MediGap to Medicare advantage — private insurance plans that cover all of the things that Medicare doesn’t.

Medicare is now beginning to cut back, and over time it will refuse to pays for unnecessary surgeries (heart surgeries, unproven prostate cancer surgeries, and some hip and knee replacements, unless the patient has tried physical therapy first–and losing weight, if possible. (Some people just can’t lose weight, even under a doctor’s supervision.)

Medicare will also stop covering every new drug that comes on market, setting up a formulary and only paying for drugs that are effective — and cost-effective. The same will be true of devices.

Then — and only then — we might talk about letting people 40-65 sign up for Medicare, though in many cases, research on quality of care suggests that they would be better off with the best of our non-profit insurers: Kaiser, Geisinger, etc.

Medicare is a highly politicized bureaucracy and inevitably, Congress dictates what it can and can’t do. Medical guidelines should be set by medical researchers and doctors who have no financial interest in the outcome.

Maggie Mahar is the originator and author of the Health Beat Blog. Maggie wrote “Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006),” and was the co-writer of the documentary, Money-Driven Medicine (2009), directed by Andrew Fredericks and produced by Alex Gibney.

Tags: , Comments (16) | |

Dancin With the Stars or “Why is there an Exemption for Representatives, Senators, and Washington staff?

After being confronted by TPM reporter Alice Ollstein about the exemption for Washington elected officials and their staff, it was obvious they were caught off guard. Read some of the answers dancing around the issue.

New Jersey Republican Representative Tom MacArthur who proposed an amendment allowing states to opt out of key PPACA requirements. Read what he and other Republican House Representatives had to say when they were asked about the exempt to the latest AHCA amendment I had writen about.

Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ); he is working to fix the language in question.

Rep. MacArthur puts out statement saying Congress shouldn’t get special treatment, they are working to fix exemption.

Rep. Scott Desjarleis (R-TN); “I don’t know about that. That’s a good question,”

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA).; “I’ll have to read the language more closely,”

Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY); “I didn’t know there was [an exemption for members of Congress]. I don’t know what you’re talking about,”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), ” because D.C. is not a state, it can not apply for or receive the same waivers states can under their bill.”

Rep. David Brat (R-VA) “an exemption for members of Congress seeking to deregulate the health care market “would be, politically, completely tone deaf.”

Other Republicans: “the carve-out would have to be addressed with a new piece of legislation for complicated parliamentary reasons. A senior leadership staff member confirmed that they are working on a ‘stand-alone effort’ to undo the exemption, which lawmakers would vote on at the same time as the larger health care package.

Freedom Caucasus member Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA): “the fix has to come through a separate bill. Did not know whether D.C. could get the same waivers as a state under the legislation; but, Griffith said it did not matter because ‘liberal’ D.C. wouldn’t seek a waiver in the first place.

Republican lawmakers and staff: it was inserted in the first place in order to ensure that it could pass the Senate under what is known as the Byrd Rule, though they did not fully explain why.

The Byrd Rule dictates that strict budgetary legislation that does not increase the federal deficit after 10 years can be fast-tracked through the Senate on a simple majority vote.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX); the Byrd Rule was ‘the genesis’ of the exemption provision, but promised that “every member of Congress is going to vote to make sure we are treated like everybody else.”

Again Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC): It was a provision that, from a fatal standpoint, would not allow us to address it because jurisdictionally on the budget reconciliation instructions, that were narrowly tailored to two different committees of jurisdiction. To fully address that would had to have gone over to another area which would have made it fatal.” huh?

And the truth?
Health care law expert and professor at Washington and Lee University, Tim Jost: “D.C. is clearly defined as a state in the Affordable Care Act. And I don’t see anything in the AHCA that changes that, including this provision,” he said. “The provision provides for congressional coverage through the marketplace, and the language is clear [regarding the exemption].”

I think most of these reps are residents of the state they represent in Congress, so why wouldn’t they be exempt from the exclusion as defined by the amendment?

Tags: Comments (6) | |

Congressional Republicans looking Out for Your Health, Healthcare Insurance, and Their’s Too . . .

One Happy Republican House Representative
invisible hand If you have not been paying attention, it looks like the Republicans are getting ready again to submit another version of a PPACA/ACA repeal bill. New Jersey Republican Representative Tom MacArthur is proposing an amendment allowing states to opt out of key PPACA requirements. For example:

- Preventative Care: The PPACA has 62 preventative measures or Essential Preventive Care benefits which are no cost to a patient. Cholesterol screening, Type 2 Diabetes screening various immunizations for adults and children, breast cancer screenings, hepatitis B screenings, HIV tests, lead screening for children, etc.

- Community Rating: In the good old days when people had a heart attack , disorder, or illness; insurance companies would rate the individual and either insure them at a much higher rate or deny insurance to them. The PPACA acting like a true insurance pool spread the risk amongst the community adapting a more uniform rate for people. Two exceptions were smoking at 150% of the lowest cost individual and 300% for older people (Republicans wish to increase this to 500%). Where people with pre-existing conditions had to pay much higher rates or had no insurance, the PPACA established rates covering them and spreading the cost.

This new GOP amendment allows states to waive community rating. Insurers could again charge people based on their health and expected health care costs. The state would have to participate in the Patient and State Stability Fund (which would be underfunded) before it could waive out of Community Rating. The PSS is a pool of money in the AHCA that states can use to set up high-risk pools or shore up insurers that get stuck with really expensive patients (think of Corridor Risk and Reissuance programs which Republicans defunded).

Initially, the AHCA as proposed by Republicans would have resulted in an estimated 24 million people becoming uninsured over 10 years with a loss of 14 million in one year. We would be back to pre-PPACA with no single payer, universal, public option, Medicare-for-all in sight. The change in the Community Rating would target those with severe illness or disorders, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions. Removing the Preventative Care portion of the PPACA targets women and children and again patients would have to pay for them. There is just the healthy left or healthy today and the rest of the populations gets to fend for themselves. That would certainly lower healthcare insurance costs until the healthcare industry sucked it up in increasing prices. Not quite sure who the Republicans are tossing a bone to with this amendment, the healthcare industry or healthcare insurance companies?

As Vox’s Sarah Kliff points out; when the PPACA came into play, all Representatives and staffers had to purchase healthcare insurance on the individuals exchange. What was good for the gander was also good for the goose so to speak. I seem to remember differently; but, let’s go with this for now. There was quite a bit of grumbling going on in Congress when this was proposed.

invisible hand Fast forward to today’s amendment by New Jersey Republican Representative Tom MacArthur; it appears Congress now likes the PPACA when it comes to their healthcare insurance. If Representatives and staffers live in one of those states waiving out of Preventative Care and Community Ratings, Congress is exempt from the wavier. Looking at section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the amendment (sixth page) there is an exemption for those who will not be included in a state’s waiver. Senators, House Representative, their staffers and I am sure every other staffer in Washington, the Cabinet and their staffers, Bannon, etc. are all excluded from any state wavier on healthcare. I am glad they are looking out for us and the people who vote for them.

Tags: Comments (0) | |

Pence Makes Deciding Vote Allowing States to Defund Planned Parenthood

Second time Pence has cast the deciding vote in the Senate. Last VP to do so was Cheney in 2008.

VP Pence has made it no secret he is opposed to allowing women the right to decide on having an abortions. While in Congress, Pence sponsored the first bill to defund Planned Parenthood in 2007 and when it did not pass then he continued the effort until it did pass in the House in 2011.

More recently a Federal Court blocked a bill signed by then Indiana Governor Pence forcing women to have a funeral for the aborted fetus which would then go through a burial or cremation. The cost of the burial or cremation would have increased the cost of the abortion dramatically in Indiana. The court ruled Pence’s law would have blocked a woman’s right to choose.

If you remember VP Pence had used his tie breaker vote to approve Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. Today, VP Pence was again called upon to break a Senate tie involving the right of states to defund Planned Parenthood.

The Department of Health and Human Services under President Obama ruled organizations providing family planning and preventive health care services could not be barred by states from receiving Title X grant dollars for any reason other than those related to their “ability to deliver services to program beneficiaries in an effective manner.” It required states and local governments to distribute federal Title X funding for services related to contraception, fertility, pregnancy care and cervical cancer screenings to health providers without regard for whether those facilities also performed abortions outside of Title X. Title X funding covers services such as contraception, STD screenings, treatments and can not be used to pay for abortion services.

Weighing in after the tie-breaking vote to overrule President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services, Senate Majority Leader McConnell had this to say:

“It was the Obama administration’s move that hurt ‘local communities’ by substituting Washington’s judgment for the needs of real people. This regulation is an unnecessary restriction on states that know their residents a lot better than the federal government.”

Not sure what needs McConnell’s real-people would have to block a woman’s decision to have an abortion which is not taken lightly by a woman and using it as an excuse to defund Planned Parenthood. It appears McConnell, Pence, and the Republicans are practicing a tyranny of a majority to disregard the rights of an individual in favor of their own views.

Tags: Comments (42) | |

Question; Have you Experienced the Same?

I was reading an article on one of the other blogs as written by an economist. In his article he discussed the 0.18% of total expenditures on one category. Then the blogger went on to describe the total expenditure as not being “18%, but rather a little less than one-fifth of 1 percent.” I asked the economist about the why of the additional explanation and whether this would be a legitimate fear that people might mistake 0.18% as being 18% and not less than 2 tenths of 1%. The answer was “yes,” he did not want the total expenditures in this category to be mistook as 18% as it was important. He went to greater length to explain it. He had experienced errors by others in misinterpreting a portion of a 1 percent as something greater than 1%.

Have you experienced the same innumeracy amongst others?

Tags: Comments (33) | |

The Battle for Healthcare in the US

In 2026, an estimated 52 million would be uninsured in the US, a dramatic reversal from the 2016 uninsured count of 28/29 million. Pretty much, the Republicans will put healthcare back to the way it was pre-2014 if Paul Ryan’s bill is passed by Congress and Donald signs the bill in its present form.

- By 2018, 14 million could be uninsured with many of the uninsured practicing the tyranny of a minority, as John S. Mill might call it, upon the rest of the insured population as they drop out. Others will simply lose healthcare insurance as states withdraw from the Medicaid expansion and employers drop the coverage they were required to carry as they had 50 or more employees. Many of today’s insured will be unable to afford the increased premiums due to smaller subsidies. The elderly will be faced with smaller subsidies and a higher 5:1 ratio premium, which is up from the present 3:1 under the ACA program.

- Doctors, clinics, and hospitals have seen increased numbers of patients coming through the front door rather than the rear door due to the expansion of Medicaid to 138% FPL and subsidies for healthcare insurance to those under 400% FPL. My own PCP has seen many new patients who have never been to a doctor before except at the ER. With the proposed reversal of the mandate to have healthcare insurance and the dropping of Medicaid, it will fall upon hospitals and doctors to still provide stabilizing care as defined by law to all who arrive at their door. Except this time, the subsidizing payments for care for the uninsured to hospitals and clinics will not be available as it was reduced with the advent of the PPACA. It appears the AHA is not too pleased with Paul Ryan’s AHCA bill either.

- Our new Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price had this to say; “You’re falling into the same old trap of individuals who are measuring the success of Medicaid by how much money we put into it. We ought not be measuring programs by how much money we put into it, we ought to be measuring them by whether or not they work.” Or take one aspirin and you will be alright in the morning. Interestingly, Republicans are happy with constituents paying a surcharge/mandate for not having healthcare insurance or healthcare. And if they suddenly have to have healthcare insurance, they pay the penalty to private companies rather than use it to fund subsidies. Who would have thought?

- Medicaid currently is not working according to Tom Price and as many as one in three doctors are not accepting Medicaid patients. That part is partially true. In a survey of its membership, the American Academy of Family Physicians discovered 68% of its members accepting new Medicaid patients in 2016. This is the highest level of Medicaid acceptance since 2004. The same argument was made for Medicare in the past. As Health Beat’s Maggie Mahar has said, “if Medicare is the largest business in town, are you going to ignore it or work within its confines?”

- Mr. Price argues on behalf of states claiming the granting of greater flexibility would result in better results and quality. My own observations with Michigan Medicaid when there was no Federal Government expansion disagrees with Tom Price’s claims. Michigan State Senator Joseph Hune said it all in one sentence when he stated; “I am ‘sick to his stomach with the expansion of Medicaid in Michigan.” Even with the expansion, the state legislature delayed the implementation of it to the following year so they could go on Christmas vacation and lost $thousands in Federal aid. This occurred in a state which can not fix its roads and bridges, argues about replacing Flint lead pipes, and wastes money going to 6th District COA and SCOTUS because it does not like rulings conflicting with its absurd beliefs. After all, Hune and his associates have their healthcare for life having been in the legislature for short periods of time; why should 600,000 Michigan residents matter to Hune and his associates.

Pre-Michigan expansion in order for adults to be insured and they had to be working. If they were working they had to be making just so much in order to be eligible. If they were not working, they were ineligible. Michigan and State Senator Joe Hune did their damnest to block people from access to healthcare. If this is Tom Price’s better results and quality, it did not work then and will only make it worse now.

- Joan Aker at Georgetown University Healthcare Policy Institute puts greater state flexibility into perspective:

“So in practical terms what does that mean? States could get new flexibility to limit enrollment. They could gain the ability to limit enrollment directly by imposing enrollment caps or rolling back eligibility; or indirectly by putting up barriers such as imposing work requirements or lockout periods, which reduce enrollment. States could also gain more flexibility in determining what benefits people receive (in the case of children this might mean limits on the child-centered EPSDT benefit) or on how much families have to pay for those services (including premiums, cost-sharing or spend down rules before seniors qualify for long term services and supports). In fact, one piece of this so-called “flexibility” that is included in the repeal bill would allow states to require seniors to spend down even more of their assets before qualifying for long-term care services and supports by placing restrictions on how much equity seniors can have in their homes.” We did this in Michigan already and pre-PPACA.

- The AHCA penalizes the poor and elderly more severely than the ACA did. The ACA has a penalty for not getting healthcare insurance, which is based on the income of the uninsured and is paid yearly at tax time. The AHCA also has a penalty for not getting healthcare insurance. It is based upon the premium you would pay, not income, and each person pays the same penalty regardless on income; however if you are older, the 5:1 ratio will apply to your penalty. As I showed using a Avalere* chart, a 27 year old person making $11,880 annually would be paying $695 at tax time under the ACA and under the AHCA plan $1,006 for a bronze plan.

If the insured was 50 years old and made $11,880 annually, the penalty under the ACA is determined by income and remains the same; however under the AHCA, the penalty under a Bronze plan format jumps to $1,713. This is an ~ $700 difference between a 27 year old and a 50 year old. If it is a Silver plan add ~100 dollars for a 27 year old and ~ $250 for a 50 year old. Whether 27 or 50 and making $11,880 annually; the payment is harsh and is harder to pay the larger it gets.

As I get more information I will pass it on. There is much going on at a rapid pace and it takes a bit to gather it up.

*After leaving the White House Office of Management and Budget in 2000, Dan Mendelson founded what is today Avalere firm and initially named it The Health Strategies Consultancy LLC.

Tags: , Comments (2) | |