advocate my healthcare

Trump and Congress Tried to Make Coronavirus Testing and Treatment Free, but People are Still Getting Big Bills when They Go to the Hospital

Maria Montecillo Leave a comment

In the early stages of the pandemic, the rules regarding insurance and patient billing for a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were not very clear. One must do his/her due diligence in asking your own insurance company how they will be processing a claim. Many provider billing departments send out invoices automatically via computer. Make sure you check your invoices carefully, as Coronavirus testing and treatment should be “free.” What this truly means is “no out-of-pocket costs or cost-sharing” for the patient.

Kimberly Leonard – Businessinsider.com – 5/21/20

The Trump administration set up a fund for the uninsured. But Imad Khachan, a coronavirus patient who is uninsured, received a large medical bill after a hospital stay.
– Congress and the Trump administration tried to protect coronavirus patients from getting large medical bills, but problems are popping up.
– Two patients who tried to get treatment for coronavirus symptoms didn’t get tested, but still received large medical bills.
– One uninsured patient living in New York City got a nearly $50,000 bill after a three-night hospital stay for coronavirus care.
David Anthony in New Jersey received a $1,528.43 bill for a chest X-ray.
Lindsay Hill in Milwaukee spent 30 minutes in a triage tent and later received a $1,186 bill in the mail.
Imad Khachan from New York City received a bill for nearly $50,000 after a three-night hospital stay.
Patients who seek medical attention for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, are not supposed to be getting large charges like these.
President Donald Trump signed two measures into law to protect patients with the coronavirus — and those who seek help because they fear they have it — from having to pay for testing and treatment. His administration is also letting hospitals bill the government directly for coronavirus testing and treatment for the uninsured, instead of charging patients.
But the changes aren’t happening seamlessly. Whether because of bad timing, an incorrect billing code, or being unable to get tested, documents sent to Business Insider show patients who sought medical help for the coronavirus are still facing big bills.
Business Insider previously reported on loopholes in the laws that were passed to protect patients from big medical bills related to the coronavirus. Michael Santos, for instance, received a $1,689.21 bill after unsuccessfully seeking a coronavirus test and getting a flu test and X-ray instead. His insurer decided to cover the cost of his emergency department visit after Business Insider inquired about it.
Christen Linke Young, a fellow with the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, said part of the reason patients are still getting large medical bills is that healthcare providers are “dealing with a whole bunch of new payment options.” On top of that, she said, there are loopholes in the new laws and regulations.
“It’s going to result in a significant amount of confusion on the consumer end,” she said, adding that “people’s fear of bills could deter them from seeking care.”

Uninsured small businesman in NYC gets COVID-19

Khachan, 56, the patient in New York City, spent three nights at the end of March in the hospital being treated for the coronavirus.
Khachan owns a chess shop called the Chess Forum in Greenwich Village that has been shut down since March 20. He had been covered by private health insurance until Dec. 31, 2019, but had foregone coverage for 2020 because of cost.
On March 24, while still in the hospital, Khachan paid the hospital $5,000 out of pocket for care, according to a receipt he received from Northwell Health, the health system the hospital belongs to.
“Everyone in the hospital was extremely kind and nice and wonderful and the hospital itself is a great medical facility that offers great medical care,” Khachan said in an email to Business Insider.
A couple of weeks after he was discharged, he was stunned to receive a bill for $47,915.20. He also received several other smaller bills for treatment and tests, as well as a $788.50 ambulance bill. He said he couldn’t afford the bills and had expected to pay roughly another $5,000.
In a later email from the hospital that Khachan shared with Business Insider, Lenox Hill said he owed a lower amount of $32,864.20.
Khachan appeared to be a victim of bad timing. He received his bill before the Department of Health and Human Services set up a website where hospitals can request reimbursement for coronavirus testing and care for the uninsured.
The administration announced the fund for the uninsured on April 22 and the website wasn’t up until May 6, which was after Khachan received medical care and his first bill. Payments from the federal government to hospitals started going out May 18, according to the Trump administration.
Under the fund’s rules, hospitals can get paid for anyone who is uninsured who received testing or care for the coronavirus starting on Feb. 4. Hospitals aren’t obligated to use the fund, and it is not yet clear how many will choose to participate.
Terry Lynam, a spokesman for Northwell Health, said the hospital first had to enroll to use the online portal, which took a few days, and then started filing claims for uninsured coronavirus patients on May 14.
Khachan’s claims would be included, meaning he won’t have to pay for the medical care and will be refunded his $5,000 deposit, Lynam said. Northwell plans to call Khachan to double check his information and will send the check before the end of this week, Lynam said.
Hundreds more patients were uninsured and treated for the coronavirus at Northwell’s hospitals alone. Bill Fuchs, who oversees billing at Northwell, said so far its hospital system filed coronavirus claims to the government for roughly 800 uninsured patients.
The hospital system said it’s also instituting a 60-day hold on all patient bills, which prevents them from being turned over to collections. The hold can be renewed depending on financial hardship.
As for the bill for the ambulance, which was provided through the New York City Fire Department, that won’t be covered by the federal uninsured fund, because the department isn’t eligible to use it, a spokesman for the department said.
Federal health officials won’t say how much money they set aside for the uninsured and it’s not clear whether the funding will be adequate at a time when nearly 39 million people have lost their jobs — and, many of them, the insurance that came with them. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the cost of treating uninsured patients with the coronavirus could land between $13.9 billion and $41.8 billion.
Linke Young from Brookings said people with the coronavirus who have smaller bills were likely to pay them rather than contest them under the new rules because they don’t know about the federal fund for the uninsured.
She said she would advise patients to call the hospital or doctor’s office and explain why they believe the provider is entitled to reimbursement from the federal government, and for the patient to ask the provider to pursue that option.
“There is nothing that tells providers they can’t bill the consumer first,” she said.
“These funds didn’t use to exist and providers were just doing what they have always done — sending bills,” she added.
Patients sought help for coronavirus but ended up with no answers and big bills.

Patients are getting billed in other instances
Anthony, 34 — who asked to use his middle name for this story to protect his family’s privacy — did a video visit on March 23 because he feared he had the coronavirus after he had chest pain that lasted several weeks and spread to his abdomen. His doctor recommended he get an X-ray, so he did.
He didn’t receive a coronavirus test and, after examining the X-ray, the doctor told him he likely had inflammation in the lungs and advised he take Advil.
A couple of weeks later, Anthony got a $52.94 bill for the online consultation. A couple of days later he received a bill for $1,528.43 for the X-ray. He was confused about the telehealth bill because he had understood all virtual visits were supposed to be covered without a copay — a change his insurer, United HealthCare, announced March 18.
He received the bill because he hadn’t yet met the deductible for his insurance plan, Anthony told Business Insider. His insurer told him the healthcare provider billed for pleurodynia, a lung infection that causes chest pain.
Anthony paid the bill with money from a health savings account.

‘Textbook COVID’ and a $1,186 bill
Hill, 39, the patient from Wisconsin, on April 5 visited a triage tent at St. Luke’s Medical Center because she worried she had the coronavirus.
Nurses measured her temperature, her pulse, and her oxygen levels, and listened to her lungs. Over a video inside the tent, Hill spoke to a nurse practitioner who told her that her symptoms were “textbook COVID.”
But, the nurse told Hill, she wouldn’t be admitted to the hospital because her oxygen levels were healthy. And because she wasn’t being admitted, the hospital wouldn’t be performing a coronavirus test.
“She told me that I ‘most likely’ had it, told me to quarantine myself for two weeks, take extra cleaning precautions around my family, and come back to the ER if my breathing became even more labored,” Hill told Business Insider in an email. “I was in and out of the triage tent in about 30 minutes. No tests were run on me, but my discharge papers read, ‘suspected COVID-19.’”
At the end of April, she received a $1,186 bill.
“It was my understanding from what I had read and what I had heard that there would not be a bill for it,” she told Business Insider.
Anthony and Hill both sought care because they worried they had the coronavirus. Under Trump administration rules, “presumed cases” of coronavirus are supposed to be covered, but it’s left up to healthcare providers to bill an insurance company for COVID-19.
“A presumptive case of COVID-19 is a case where a patient’s medical record documentation supports a diagnosis of COVID-19, even if the patient does not have a positive in vitro diagnostic test result in his or her medical record,” said a Health Resources and Services Administration spokesperson.
When patients see doctors, they sometimes order other tests to rule out similar conditions. That means patients can still get charged for those tests even if they only went to a provider in the first place because they feared they had the coronavirus.
Linke Young from Brookings pointed out that other patients could end up in similar situations. For instance, patients could get big bills after getting checked out at a hospital that didn’t have coronavirus testing, or after going to a clinic and finding out they didn’t have the coronavirus after all.
“There is nothing to protect them from getting those bills,” she said.

Health insurers revisited the medical bills
When Business Insider asked about Anthony’s charges, United HealthCare said that it was waiving all out of pocket charges for him after reviewing the services he received, and said it would refund his payments. The company is waiving charges for coronavirus treatment from February 4 to May 31, and providers have to bill the visit as related to COVID-19.
Hill is appealing her bill. She called her insurance provider, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, which told her that its billing practices had changed since the beginning of April because of the pandemic. The insurer called St. Luke’s to re-code the diagnosis so that it would be covered.
Hill said her insurer was helpful, and she will find out the result of her appeal within 30 days. BCBS Illinois told her that if for some reason the hospital doesn’t recode the bill, then she can appeal to the insurer and submit her discharge papers that read “suspected COVID-19.”
Asked about company’s practices, Katherine Wojtecki, spokeswoman for BCBS of Illinois, didn’t comment specifically on Hill’s case but said in an email that “our focus is on helping our members access medically necessary care amid the coronavirus public health emergency and ease the burden of individuals who may be facing challenging circumstances, so they can focus on their health and well-being.”
LeeAnn Betz, spokeswoman for Advocate Aurora Health, the health system St. Luke’s belongs to, also didn’t comment on Hill’s case but said in an email that patients who arrive at facilities with symptoms of coronavirus will get tested.
“We’ve had to react quickly to changes that insurance companies made in how they wanted services billed during this pandemic, but it’s a priority that our patients are informed on what services they are receiving and why they are being performed,” she said. “In most cases, insurance companies are paying for COVID¬-related services without any remaining patient financial responsibility.”

Read More

Medical Cost Advocate was featured in a documentary by a French journalist

Maria Montecillo Leave a comment

A French journalist from CAPA TV (the equivalent of 60 Minutes in the US) came to our office and interviewed our CEO Derek Fitteron regarding our advocacy services. The interview was also about our client Stella who is featured on the previous blog. Watch how Stella was very stressed over the thousands of dollars in medical bills that she received when her triplets were born prematurely, and how her Advocate helped her in resolving these bills.

To watch it subtitled in English, go to settings➡️subtitles➡️auto translate➡️English.

You will see Stella, Stella’s advocate Maria, and Derek beginning at the 7:20 mark.

 

 

Read More

The Affordable Care Act after Six years

Doug Leave a comment

Excellent summary from the Kaiser Family Foundation that clears up some of the confusion around where the Affordable Care Act fits in the overall healthcare system

By Drew Altman, president and chief executive officer of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The Affordable Care Act generates so much partisan heat and draws so much media attention that many people may have lost perspective on where this law fits in the overall health system.

The Affordable Care Act is the most important legislation in health care since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The law’s singular achievement is that 20 million people who were previously uninsured have health-care coverage. What sets the ACA apart is not only the progress made in covering the uninsured but also the role the law has played rewriting insurance rules to treat millions of sick people more fairly and its provisions reforming provider payment under Medicare. The latter is getting attention throughout the health system.

Still, while the ACA expands coverage and has changed pieces of the health system–including previously dysfunctional aspects of the individual insurance market–it did not attempt to reform the entire health-care system. Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer-based health insurance system each cover many more people. Consider:

Some 12.7 million people have signed up for coverage in the ACA marketplaces, and enrollment in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program has increased by 14.5 million from pre-ACA levels, the Department of Health and Human Services noted in December. By contrast, 72 million people are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, 55 million in Medicare, and 150 million are covered through the employer-based health insurance system. The latter is where most Americans get their health coverage (Medicare and Medicaid share 10 million beneficiaries covered by both programs). All these forms of coverage have been affected by the ACA but operate largely independent of it.

In one presidential debate the moderator confused premium increases in ACA marketplaces (some of which are high, though the average is moderate) with premium increases in the much larger employer-based system. The tendency to overattribute developments, both good and bad, to the ACA is a product of super-heated debate about the law.

Given what the law actually does, it is not all that surprising that half of Americans say they have not been affected by it. Kaiser Family Foundation polling consistently finds that while the political world focuses on the ACA, the public is more concerned about rising deductibles and drug prices and other changes in the general insurance marketplace that have been developing with less scrutiny while attention has gone to the ACA. With so much published and said about the ACA since 2010, these and other important issues have received less attention from policy makers, the media, and health-care experts.

The ACA could get hotter before it cools. There is a case on contraception coverage under consideration at the Supreme Court–with oral arguments heard Wednesday–and another big debate about the law is likely if a Republican wins the White House in November. Such a debate would probably involve legislation characterized as “repealing” the ACA, though such a bill is more likely to focus on changes that stop short of rolling back the law’s popular coverage expansions and insurance reforms that benefit tens of millions of Americans.

Read More

This Could Be the Obamacare Outcome we’ve All Been Waiting For

Doug Leave a comment

This often-overlooked long-term goal of Obamacare may be finding the mark according to this latest study from the American Cancer Society.

The third open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act, best known as Obamacare, has been ongoing for roughly five weeks now. And as seems to be the trend around this time of year, more questions than answers appear to be swirling around healthcare’s law of the land.

Big changes lead to an uncertain future

Obamacare is facing a number of changes in the 2016 calendar year, and, frankly, no one is certain yet how those changes might affect enrollment or patient mix for insurers.

For example, insurance premiums are rising at about their fastest rate in about a decade. The Great Recession held premium rate inflation in check for years, but the failure of more than half of Obamacare’s health cooperatives, coupled with many low-cost insurers coming to the realization that their rates were unsustainably low, are leading to big premium hikes in the upcoming year.

Data from the Washington Examiner showed that 231 insurers requested double-digit percentage premium price hikes in 2016 compared to just 121 in 2015. Furthermore, the magnitude of these hikes — 61 plans are looking for a minimum premium increase of 30% this year — is much higher than 2015. In short, there’s concern that higher premiums could reduce the affordability of the program for those who don’t qualify for a subsidy, leading to a higher uninsured rate.

Meanwhile, the employer mandate will be fully implemented on Jan. 1, 2016. The employer mandate will require that businesses with 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees (FTE’s) offer eligible health coverage to those FTE’s and their dependents under the age of 26, as well as provide financial assistance in instances where low-income FTE’s would be paying more than 9.5% of their modified adjusted gross income out of pocket toward their premium. If qualifying businesses fail to follow the rules, they could be looking at a $2,000 to $3,000 fine per employee.
The big question here is how businesses will respond. Will bigger companies step up and supply health insurance for their workers or will we see layoffs, hour cutbacks, or a move to private health exchanges? Obamacare’s big changes in 2016 are leading to a seemingly uncertain enrollment outlook in the near term.

Obamacare’s incredibly important goal that you probably overlooked

The easiest way to measure the success of Obamacare has always been by its overall enrollment totals. Obamacare was first and foremost designed to reduce the number of uninsured and to utilize the individual mandate and employer mandate to make that happen. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in Q1 2015 that just 9.2% of U.S. adults remained uninsured, including Medicare patients, which is the lowest figure on record. By this token, Obamacare would appear to be hitting its primary goal.

But there’s an even more important long-term goal that’s often lost on critics when discussing Obamacare’s success or failure — namely, the impact that preventative (and earlier) medical access could have on reducing long-term medical costs.
For insurers, Obamacare is a bit of a give and take. Insurers are enrolling more people than ever, and they’re also being required to accept members with pre-existing conditions. The result is that some insurers, such as the nation’s largest, UnitedHealth Group, are dealing with adverse selection and losing money on their individual marketplace plans because they’ve enrolled a large number of sicker individuals. Even though some of its large peers such asAnthem are healthfully profitable, the margins most insurers are generating on Obamacare plans (if they’re even profitable in the first place) are relatively small.

Now here’s the catch: In exchange for spending more money on their members up front, it’s possible that chronic and serious diseases that are the primary expense culprit for insurance companies can be caught before they become a serious issue. Thus, while health benefit providers may be spending more now than they would like to, their long-term outlook is also looking brighter presuming the current generation of members is now going to be healthier than the last generation given expanded access to medical care.

This could be the outcome we’ve been waiting for.

This last point sounds great on paper, but it’s difficult to prove that Obamacare is really making a dent in lowering long-term healthcare costs, especially since it’s only been the law of the land for about two years. All that consumers and critics can focus on at the moment are the rapidly rising premium prices.

However, a new study from the American Cancer society that was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association late last month appears to show that there is a correlation between Obamacare’s expansion and a higher rate of cervical cancer diagnoses in select patients.

Researchers from the Department of Epidemiology at Emory University and from the ACS’ Department of Intramural Research analyzed a large database of cancer cases within the United States, separating cervical cancer diagnoses for women ages 21 to 25 in one group from cervical cancer diagnoses in women ages 26 to 34 in the other cohort. The reasoning behind this split? Persons under the age of 26 are still eligible to be covered under their parents’ health plan under Obamacare, and thus the expansion of this dependent clause should give researchers a reasonable correlation of how well Obamacare is affecting the rate of cervical cancer diagnoses.

After examining cervical cancer diagnosis rates for both cohorts before and after the implementation of Obamacare, researchers noted that there was a substantial increase in the number of cervical cancer diagnoses for women ages 21 to 25, whereas the age 26-34 cohort had a relatively consistent number of diagnoses before and after Obamacare’s implementation.

On the surface, a rising rate of cervical cancer diagnoses may not sound good at all. But, in a different context it could be just the news we’ve been hoping for. The key to beating cervical cancer is discovering it early, and presumably being able to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26 helped the 21- to 25-year-old cohort gain this vital medical access. It’s possible that this early diagnoses not only saved lives, but for insurers that it kept them from shelling out big bucks in mid- to late-stage cancer treatments.

Keep in mind that this is just one example, and one example does not make a trend. However, it’s long been postulated that reducing the barriers to health insurance would lead to a higher medical utilization rate for consumers and a better chance of discovering potentially serious and chronic conditions at an earlier time, thus saving the patients’ lives and cutting insurers’ long-term medical expenses. It’s possible we could be witnessing the first signs of that.

Understandably, we’ll want to see additional studies emerge that examine disease diagnosis and treatment rates in a pre- and post-Obamacare setting so we can make a conclusive ruling as to whether or not Obamacare could actually lower long-term healthcare costs and improve long-term patient survival rates. The initial signs, though, are very encouraging.

Read More

Americans don’t know what’s in Obamacare, do know they don’t like it

admin

By Sarah Kliff, Washington Post

Fifty percent of Americans now say they oppose the Affordable Care Act. This is the highest number that Kaiser Family Foundation’s poll has seen since October 2011, when Republicans were in the midst of a primary cycle and lots of anti-Obamacare rhetoric was in the air. The easiest explanation for the recent upswing in negative sentiment would be that lots of Americans tried, but failed, to buy insurance through HealthCare.gov. They ran into technical barriers that plagued the site in October and November. But Kaiser’s data don’t really bear out that thesis. There’s actually only been a tiny uptick in the number of Americans who say the health-care law has affected their lives over the past three months. A full 59 percent of Americans still report no personal experience with the law. 

Most Americans don’t know that Obamacare has, at this point, pretty much fully taken effect. When surveyed in January, after the insurance expansion began, 18 percent said they thought “all” or “most” provisions of the Affordable Care Act had been put into place.

There’s lots of confusion, too, about what policies are and aren’t part of the health-care law. Most Americans know there’s a mandate to purchase health insurance. A lot fewer are aware that the law provides financial help for low- to middle-income Americans (the tax subsidies) or gives states the option of expanding Medicaid.

For many Americans – particularly the 68 percent who get coverage through their work, Medicare and Medicaid — the launch of the exchanges probably doesn’t affect their coverage situation. They’ll continue getting insurance in 2014 just the same way they did in 2013. For them, an expansion of Medicaid or an end to the denial of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions isn’t a big change (unless, of course, they lose their current coverage).

So what’s driving the negative opinions of Obamacare? The Kaiser survey does point to one potential culprit: negative news coverage. More Americans say they’ve seen stories about people having bad experiences with the Affordable Care Act than good ones.

Politico’s David Nather had a great line on this recently, in a story about the very high bar for success stories about the Affordable Care Act.

“Here’s the challenge the White House faces in telling Obamacare success stories: Try to picture a headline that says, ‘Obamacare does what it’s supposed to do,’ ” Nather writes. “Somehow, the Obama administration and its allies will have to convince news outlets to run those kinds of stories — and to give the happy newly insured the same kind of attention as the outraged complainers whose health plans were canceled because of the law.”

We don’t have a great sense yet of what type of experience Obamacare’s new enrollees are having — whether they’re disproportionately bad or if the bad stories are just more interesting to cover. But the more negative news coverage does seem to have played some role in the recent uptick in negative opinions about the new law.

Read More

Driving a New Bargain in Health Care

Doug

By TYLER COWEN, professor of economics at George Mason University

Interesting piece on possible compromises that both political parties could agree to in improving the health care law.

The Affordable Care Act has gotten off to a rocky start. Federal and state online health insurance exchanges, which opened for business at the beginning of the month, have been bedeviled by technical snags. And opposition to the law from some House Republicans blocked funding for the entire federal government, leading to its partial shutdown.

In fact, with all the conflict and vituperation over Obamacare, it sometimes seems that one of the few things Democrats and Republicans agree on is that the law is imperfect at best. And they also agree that it could be improved. Even if a bipartisan deal to create a better health care system seems far off today, it’s not too soon to start imagining what a future bargain might look like.

Just to get started, I will assume that, at some point, Democrats will be willing to acknowledge that not everything has worked out as planned with the legislation, and that they would consider a rewrite that would expand coverage. I’ll also assume that Republicans will acknowledge that a feasible rewrite of the bill cannot give the Democrats nothing. And Republicans will need to recognize that repeal of Obamacare should not be their obsession, because they would then be leaving the nation with a dysfunctional yet still highly government-oriented health care system, not some lost conservative paradise. Both sides have a lot to gain, and, at some point, they should realize it.

Let’s look at some of the current problems in the health care system and see whether they might be patched up.

Even under Obamacare, many people will not have health insurance coverage, including two-thirds of poor blacks and single mothers and more than half the low-wage workers who lacked coverage before the law was enacted. That is largely because of the unwillingness of 26 governors to expand Medicaid coverage as the original bill had intended. The Supreme Court struck down that portion of the Affordable Care Act, however, giving states a choice.

Will many red-state governors eventually accept the act’s Medicaid extension, which is sometimes portrayed as a financial free lunch, since federal aid covers most of the coverage expansion? It’s not clear that they will. If the Republicans win the White House in 2016 and perhaps the House and Senate as well, they may cut off federal funds for that Medicaid expansion. In the meantime, many states don’t want to extend their Medicaid rolls, because such benefits are hard to withdraw once granted.

There is a deeper problem with relying heavily on Medicaid as the backbone of health care for the poor. The fact that so many governors have found political gain in opposing a nearly fully-funded Medicaid expansion suggests that long-term support for Medicaid is weaker than it appeared just a few years ago. Furthermore, in cyclical downturns, the increase in Medicaid coverage after a climb in unemployment puts much strain on state budgets.

A separate issue concerns employers who are shedding insurance coverage, whether by dropping retirees, moving more workers to part-time status, withholding coverage and paying fines mandated by law, or simply not hiring more workers in the first place. The magnitude of these effects is not yet clear, but over time we can expect that new businesses and new hiring will be structured to minimize costly insurance obligations. It’s no accident that the Obama administration handed out more than 1,000 exemptions from the employer coverage mandate, and postponed the employer mandate until 2015: both actions reflected underlying problems in the legislation. Ideally, the health care law should minimize what is essentially an implicit tax on hiring.

One way forward would look like this: Federalize Medicaid, remove its obligations from state budgets altogether and gradually shift people from Medicaid into the health care exchanges and the network of federal insurance subsidies. One benefit would be that private insurance coverage brings better care access than Medicaid, which many doctors are reluctant to accept.

To help pay for such a major shift, the federal government would cut back on revenue sharing with the states and repeal the deductibility of state income taxes. The states should be able to afford these changes because a big financial obligation would be removed from their budgets.

By moving people from Medicaid to Obamacare, the Democrats could claim a major coverage expansion, an improvement in the quality of care and access for the poor, and a stabilization of President Obama’s legacy — even if the result isn’t exactly the Affordable Care Act as it was enacted. The Republicans could claim that they did away with Medicaid, expanded the private insurance market, and moved the nation closer to a flat-tax system by eliminating some deductions, namely those for state income taxes paid.

At the same time, I’d recommend narrowing the scope of required insurance to focus on catastrophic expenses. If insurance picks up too many small expenses, it encourages abuse and overuse of scarce resources.

In sum, poorer Americans would get a guarantee of coverage and, with private but federally subsidized insurance, gain better access to quality care for significant expenses than they have now with Medicaid. Private insurance pays more and is accepted by many more doctors. But on the downside, the insured care would be less comprehensive than under current definitions of Obamacare’s mandate.

With a cheaper and more modest insurance package mandated under a retooled law, employers would be less intent on dropping coverage. That would help in job creation. It also would lower the federal cost of the subsidies through the exchanges, both because employers would cover more workers and because the insurance policies would be cheaper.

This wouldn’t be an ideal health care system, but it may be the best we can do, considering where we stand today.

Read More

Consumer group says spending caps in national healthcare law will bring relief to people seeking medical care

J Roberts

There could be relief for out-of pocket costs under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under the act, out-of-pocket costs will be capped at a certain dollar amount.  Hopefully, this will protect consumers from increased debt and potential bankruptcies due to exorbitant medical bills.

Los Angeles Times

It’s a well-known complaint among consumers and healthcare advocates: The soaring cost of medical care is forcing millions of Americans to drain their savings, run up credit card bills, declare bankruptcy or lose their homes to foreclosure.

A report out Tuesday that examines the problem in California says the nation’s year-old healthcare law –- currently under assault by congressional Republicans — would help protect people in the Golden State from financial catastrophe.

In its study, the consumer group Families USA points out that the law would cap how much people with insurance must spend out of their pockets for healthcare services, starting in 2014.

If the law were to take effect this year, the group says, the caps would be $5,950 for an individual and $11,900 for a family of any size. Low-income people would pay less than higher earners.

More than 1.9 million Californians would exceed the spending caps if they were in place this year, the group reports. That extra spending would surpass the caps by more than $3 billion.

Once the new spending limits are in place in 2014, insurance companies will have to pick up the tab for essential  medical services -– including the costs for doctors, hospitals, prescription drugs and emergency care — after consumers pay their share.

“These new out-of-pocket caps will protect families from catastrophic medical costs when illness or [an] accident strikes,” the report states.

The spending caps will apply to health insurance plans sold through new insurance exchanges scheduled to open in 2014 in California and other states. The limits also will apply to new insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses outside the exchanges.

In addition to the report on California, Families USA produced data for other states. To read the reports, go to http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/health-reform/out-of-pocket-caps-states.html.

Read More

More Americans oppose health-care law, but few want a total repeal

J Roberts

The nation still appears divided over the Affordable Care Act.  According to the below Washington Post article, a recent poll by ABC shows an even split over those in favor of the law and those who want a total repeal. What’s your position? We’d like to know.

Jon Cohen

The Washington Post

Republican claims that the new health-care law will hurt the country’s fragile economic recovery and inflate the deficit resonate with the public, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. But few opponents of the law advocate an immediate, wholesale repeal of the legislation.

Overall, Americans’ views of the sweeping health-care overhaul, again under debate on Capitol Hill, remain firmly entrenched, with little change in stiff partisanship on the issue. Some 45 percent of those polled support the law, and 50 percent oppose it, numbers that exactly match their averages in Post-ABC polls going back to August 2009.

Three-quarters of Democrats support the new law, and 80 percent of Republicans oppose it; both are within a few points of their long-term averages. Independents tilt against the legislation, just as they have in most previous polls.

Republicans surveyed in the poll overwhelmingly see negative consequences if the law remains unchanged: 80 percent say it is likely to hurt the economy, 78 percent say it will increase the deficit, and 67 percent say it is apt to cost the country jobs. On each of these points, a majority of independents also take the pessimistic view.

On the economy generally and on jobs, most Democrats see long-term positive effects of the current law. But on the deficit, they divide down the middle, with 46 percent saying the law is more likely to increase the federal budget deficit and 46 percent saying it is more apt to decrease it.

Despite the relative popularity of the detractors’ arguments, there is still little consensus among opponents about the right approach to amending the legislation.

Those who do not support the law are split about evenly between advocating for its complete repeal (33 percent), a partial repeal (35 percent) and a wait-and-see approach (30 percent). Fully two-thirds of all Republicans say they want the law repealed, at least partly.

Recent polls on repeal yield very different answers depending on how the question is asked and how many answer categories respondents are offered. In every iteration of the question, a relatively split verdict on the law appears intact.

As reported Monday, for the first time in Post-ABC polling, congressional Republicans are now tied with President Obama on the question of whom the public trusts when it comes to dealing with health-care change. Overall, 43 percent of Americans approve of the way the president is handling the issue, matching a career low; 52 percent disapprove.

Another factor in the debate is that a quarter of those who oppose the health-care law say the legislation is faulty because it did not go far enough, not because it pushed change too far.

The poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 13 to 16, among a random national sample of 1,053 adults. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Read More

Va. Judge Says Healthcare Reform Law Is Unconstitutional

J Roberts

HFMA

Could be trouble for the Obama administration and Healhcare in general if the December 12 ruling by Federal Judge Hudson is upheld.  Whatever the decision, 2011 will prove to be a year of polemics and intense debates as healthcare will be at the top of the political agenda.

A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on December 12 that the individual mandate, a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional. The action today marks the first time that any court in the country has ruled to invalidate any part of the legislation. However, according to Virginia Judge Henry E. Hudson, there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law.

In a 42-page opinion, Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s individual mandate to buy health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The judge wrote that his survey of case law “yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, not withstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.”

Obama administration officials said they are confident that the law eventually will be upheld and stressed that any actual impact on the law would be deferred for years. They noted that the insurance requirement does not even take effect until 2014, when the Supreme Court presumably will have ruled.

Read More

Statistics: Who Visits the Emergency Room? 20 Percent of Americans, Insured or Not

J Roberts

Here are some interesting facts about who visits the ER from The New York Times. One interesting fact to take note of, people with private insurance visit the ER almost as much as people without insurance.

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Americans, insured and not, make ample use of hospital emergency rooms: One out of every five visited an E.R. at least once in 2007, the latest year for which the National Center for Health Statistics has data.

Among the uninsured, 7.4 percent made two or more visits to an E.R., but so did 5.1 percent of people with private insurance. Medicaid recipients were the heaviest users of E.R.’s, with 15.3 percent of them making two or more visits during the year.

Adults in fair or poor health were most likely to go to an E.R. More than a third of them visited an emergency room at least once during the year.

People younger than 65 who said the E.R. was their only health care facility were no more likely to have gone to an emergency room than others, and for those older than 65, there were more E.R. visits by people with a usual source of care than by those without one.

More than 25 percent of non-Hispanic blacks visited an E.R., compared with 20 percent of whites and about 18 percent of Hispanics. For people younger than 75, age made little difference.

In all age groups, about one in five people went to the E.R. But among those older than 75, one in four visited the E.R. at least once.

The uninsured were no more likely to make non-emergency visits to the E.R. than anyone else — about 10 percent of visits were for non-emergencies, whether the patients had private insurance, Medicaid coverage or no insurance.

Figuring out who visits emergency rooms, how often and for what reasons involves sorting out complex interactions among many factors — socioeconomic level, health status, age, health insurance, access to health care and others.

“Our job is to provide the best numbers to inform policy and practice,” said Amy B. Bernstein of the National Center for Health Statistics. “If people are concerned about the use of emergency rooms and how to make their use more efficient or effective, they should have accurate information about who is actually using them — and not who they think is using them.”

Read More