Pages

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Health Care Reform Articles - May 25, 2021

Rep. Katie Porter unleashes whiteboard on big pharma executive over skyrocketing drug prices

by Marissa Higgins - The Daily Kos - May 19, 2021

On Tuesday, Democratic Rep. Katie Porter took out her famous whiteboard and gave the internet a breath of fresh air. Porter, as well as colleagues in the House Oversight Committee, grilled Richard Gonzalez, the CEO of AbbVie, a pharmaceutical company, over the increasing price of Humira—an anti-inflammatory drug used to treat conditions like Crohn’s—in the U.S. while apparently reducing the cost of the drug in other countries. While the company has argued the price increases came down to innovations in the drug, Porter and fellow Democrats on the committee were far from convinced. 

"You lie to patients when you charge them twice as much for an unimproved drug,” Porter stated in the two-minute video that’s quickly going viral. “And then you lie to policymakers when you tell us that R&D justifies those price increases.” Zing! Let’s check out the full video, and Porter’s history of grilling executives with her whiteboard in hand, below.

During the hearing, Porter asked Gonzalez how much money AbbVie spent on dividends and stock buybacks. Gonzalez didn’t have a specific number available to offer, so Porter supplied her own, saying that the company spent $50 billion between 2013 and 2018 on stocks to help shareholders. In comparison, the company contributed a far smaller amount to research and development. Mind you, research and development is the part of the company that actually improves drugs.

Porter described "the Big Pharma fairy tale” as focused on innovative research and development that theoretically justifies the high prices of these medicines, but, as she put it, “the pharma reality is that you spend most of your company's money making money for yourself and your shareholders."

"You're not honest about that with patients and policymakers,” Porter continued. “You're feeding us lies that we must pay astronomical prices to get 'innovative' treatments. The American people, the patients, deserve so much better."

Porter also asked Gonzalez to share how much the company paid its executives. Gonzalez said executives were compensated with about $60 million per year—a truly staggering number. The number Porter offered was even more staggering, bordering on the surreal: a cool $334 million.

Editor's Note -

Big Pharma wins again! 

Or - does Katie Porter win again?  Click on the link, then you be the judge.

-SPC

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/5/19/2031150/-Watch-Rep-Katie-Porter-grill-big-pharma-executive-for-two-minutes-straight-whiteboard-in-hand 

Op-Ed: How doctor culture sinks U.S. healthcare

by Robert Pearl -  Los Angeles Times - May 16, 2021


Over the last pandemic year, we’ve seen doctors work heroically to save lives. Their dedication, expertise and work ethic represent the best of medical culture. But as we return to normality, we need to acknowledge that the same culture that turns doctors into heroes is also contributing to a healthcare crisis of rising costs and decaying standards.

Physicians, policy experts and academics all insist that American healthcare suffers from systemic issues. By “systemic,” they mean bureaucratic. Clinicians, they say, are bogged down by administrative burdens, pesky prior-authorization requirements and cumbersome computers that (literally) sit between doctors and patients.

I agree. Correcting these deficiencies will be vital for reform. But if these administrative fixes are the only healthcare changes we accomplish, then everyone will be sorely disappointed with the results.

In addition to fixing the system, we must also look closely at the values and norms that doctors acquire in medical school and carry throughout their careers. This invisible force — medical culture — wields tremendous influence over patients and physicians, with physical, financial and psychological consequences that range from lifesaving to life-ending.

COVID-19 made the physical harm of medical culture clear. Consider that nearly two-thirds of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had at least one chronic disease, such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension and heart failure, according to National Institutes of Health research.

In critical care units, doctors pulled many of these patients back from the brink of death. But if American physicians had dedicated more time and effort toward preventing and better managing these types of chronic diseases, tens of thousands wouldn’t have needed hospitalization in the first place. And many of them would still be alive.

One obstacle is that insurers reimburse physicians too little for the time it takes to prevent disease. However, an equally large part of the problem is rooted in the priorities of physicians themselves. Preventing disease isn’t as visibly “heroic” as a lifesaving intervention. It’s undervalued, even in terms of compensation, although multiple studies show that when healthcare providers place a high value on primary care, they reduce chronic disease by half compared with national averages.

That medical bills can lead to financial ruin is no secret. According to a Gallup poll, half of U.S. patients worry that one major illness could force them to declare bankruptcy. We tend to blame the insurance and pharmaceutical industries for the high price of medical care. But we fail to recognize the role doctors play.

A review of articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine determined that one-third of “established medical practices … are found to be no better than a less expensive, simpler, or easier therapy or approach.” Another study estimated that 25% of all healthcare spending from 2012 to 2019 was wasted.

Physicians insist they put the needs of patients first. And yet it’s doctors who order unnecessary tests, overprescribe medications and perform risky surgeries when less-expensive approaches would be just as valuable. And when doctors benefit economically at the expense of patients, medical culture shields them from the shame of hypocrisy, assuring them that doing more is never wrong.

Finally, medical culture does psychological harm. In early 2020, a friend was diagnosed with ovarian cancer that rapidly spread to her liver, lung and brain. While delivering the news, her doctor added, “It’s not a death sentence.”

I have no idea why he would have said that. If he was implying a cure was possible, then he was more sadistic than compassionate. My friend deserved the truth. She died three days later.

Physicians are trained to offer hope, even when hope disguises an ugly truth. In 2014, a study of 70 Food and Drug Administration-approved chemotherapy agents found the cancer treatments extended life by an average of only 2.1 months. That time was often spent in a hospital, rather than at home or in palliative care. Hiding uncomfortable truths remains a cultural norm in medicine, one that benefits providers far more than patients.

How do we cure a culture that’s invisible yet highly influential? Begin at the beginning, with those who are educating and training our next generation of physicians.

To reduce the physical harm medical culture inflicts on patients, medical school deans must elevate the esteem of primary care, make clear its crucial role. To start, more internal medicine physicians should take the places of specialists in lecture halls.

Inflicting less financial harm on patients will mean lowering overall healthcare expenditures. In general, communities with more specialists have a higher frequency of procedures performed, greater healthcare costs but no improvement in quality or life expectancy. Again, the balance of specialists and primary care doctors is key. Leaders in academic medical centers can help, by increasing the ratio of primary care residents admitted to their programs.

Finally, much psychological damage could be avoided if physicians were trained to treat every patient like a family member. We would produce more compassionate physicians if residents and interns were asked, ”Did you treat all of your patients today as you would want if they were your parent, sibling or child?”

Many factors contribute to our nation’s soaring medical costs, flagging clinical quality and the rising dissatisfaction of both doctors and patients. The one problem we continually overlook with tragic consequences is the flawed culture of medicine.

Dr. Robert Pearl is a plastic and reconstructive surgeon and former chief executive of the Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser Permanente). He teaches at Stanford. His latest book is “Uncaring: How the Culture of Medicine Kills Doctors and Patients,” scheduled for publication in mid-May.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-05-16/healthcare-harm-doctors-culture-prevention-unnecessary-procedures

Washington State: Single-Payer Health Care Here We Come

by Charles Pennacchio - Op-Ed News - May 14, 2021

Washington State's history-making Single-Payer directive legislation, signed into law yesterday by Gov. Jay Inslee, establishes the Evergreen State as the leading force for universal healthcare justice in the United States.

The Evergreen State in the Great Northwest just took a formal leap where no U.S. state has gone before. When Gov. Jay Inslee affixed his signature to SB 5399, at 12 noon PT yesterday, May 13, he set in motion a process designed to create the first-in-the-nation Single-Payer / Medicare for all healthcare system. Olympia-based legislators are charged with implementing a comprehensive, guaranteed, universal health care funding and delivery system, in coordination with federal authorities, through the recommendations and work of the permanent universal healthcare commission. (This is the best healthcare news in this country since Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid legislation in 1965.) Therefore, what the province of Saskatchewan was for Canada in the mid-twentieth century - a demonstration model for the single-payer solution that paved the way for national Medicare for all - Washington State can be for the United States in the first quarter of the twenty-first century.

Here's what the rollout will look like. The newly-established universal healthcare commission begins its work within ninety days to transition Washington State to a "universally financed healthcare system" (aka, single-payer). The commission will implement the essential programs and design elements, including benefits packages, reimbursement rates, and federal-state financing mechanisms to establish a streamlined, one-payer financing system, in coordination with federal authorities. On a parallel track, the bill requires the WA State Health Care Authority to begin the application process for federal waivers - both legal and financial - within sixty days of their availability, while empowering state agencies to implement specific recommendations from any of the reports issued by the commission.

"We deserve access to the healthcare we need when we need it. And we deserve that healthcare at a cost we can afford," said Sen. Emily Randall (D-Bremerton), the author of SB 5399. "That's why I was proud to work with Alliance for a Healthy Washington to establish the Universal Healthcare Commission that will coordinate local and federal efforts to build a system that covers everyone. Together we're laying the groundwork for a healthier Washington, a healthier future for all of us."

"COVID-19 has been a stress test on all of our institutions and has shone a bright light on the inequities and unsustainability of our current fractured system. States have long been incubators for lasting systemic change in the U.S., and I truly believe that Washington State will lead the way in transitioning the nation to a truly universal healthcare system," said Alliance for a Healthy Washington's Board President Bevin McLeod.

As the nation's leading forum and advocacy organization for healthcare justice at all levels - local, state, regional, and national - the One Payer States (OPS) community is thrilled with the news out of Washington State. Our sister partner is heading to the finish line, carrying all of our hopes for a healthy and promising tomorrow, wind-aided by our collective support and energy.

More than that, however, yesterday's breakthrough in Olympia is not only a legislative victory - it represents the fruit of determined, focused, strategic action by policy, communications, and organizer super-volunteers - inspiring for and emblematic of movement politics that connects issues of health justice (e.g., housing, food, education) to healthcare justice. This is what democracy looks like. This is what transformative universal justice looks like. This is what health and healthcare justice looks like.

Chuck Pennacchio

President, One Payer States

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-State-Single-P-by-Charles-Pennacchio-Health-Care-Universal--Single-Payer_Medicare-For-All_Washington-State-210514-623.html 

 

Nearly one million people signed up for Obamacare coverage this spring.

Margot Sanger-Katz and


Nearly one million Americans have signed up for Affordable Care Act coverage during the first 10 weeks of a special open enrollment period the Biden administration began in February.

A total of 940,000 people enrolled in Obamacare coverage between Feb. 15 and April 30, new data released Thursday by Health and Human Services shows. Of those new enrollees, nearly half bought coverage last month, after Congress added billions in subsidies included in the most recent stimulus package.

With that additional funding, the average monthly premium that Healthcare.gov consumers paid fell to $86 for those signing up in April, down from $117 in February and March (before the new subsidies).

The surge in sign-ups reflects a growing demand for health insurance. Many Americans have lost job-based coverage during the pandemic, and others who were uninsured before found themselves newly interested in coverage. The numbers undercount the overall new insurance sign-ups; they reflect enrollment only in the 36 states with marketplaces that the federal government manages.

The increase most likely reflects increased publicity about the opportunity, the availability of more financial help with premiums, and health fears related to the pandemic. The Trump administration made deep cuts in advertising and marketing for Healthcare.gov. The Biden administration reversed many of those changes, committing to spending $100 million to advertise this new enrollment period.

The new subsidies make a substantial difference in the affordability of insurance for many Americans. About four million who are currently uninsured can qualify for plans that will cost them no premium, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation (the government subsidy would cover the entire monthly cost).

Another group, higher up the income scale, qualifies for financial assistance for the first time. Some families will be eligible for discounts of more than $10,000 a year. Under the stimulus bill, these new subsidies will last until the end of 2022. But the president has said he will seek to extend them as part of his American Families Plan legislation.

Around two million Americans who were already enrolled in Obamacare coverage have returned to the marketplace to take advantage of new subsidies, according to the department. That number represents a fraction of those eligible for new discounts. Biden administration officials opted against an automatic update of subsidies, and have instead been trying to encourage consumers to come back and request them individually.

Everyone eligible for a new discount will get it eventually, but those who sign up now will receive monthly discounts on their insurance, while those who do not will get the money as a refund when they file their taxes next year.

Sign-ups for health plans in most states will remain open until Aug. 15 this year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/upshot/obamacare-signups.html?referringSource=articleShare 

 

First They Faced the Virus. Now Come the Medical Bills.

Insurers and Congress wrote rules to protect coronavirus patients, but the bills came anyway, leaving some mired in debt.

by Sarah Kliff - NYT - May 21, 2021

One coronavirus survivor manages her medical bills in color-coded folders: green, red and tan for different types of documents. A man whose father died of the virus last fall uses an Excel spreadsheet to organize the outstanding debts. It has 457 rows, one for each of his father’s bills, totaling over $1 million.

These are people who are facing the financial version of long-haul Covid: They’ve found their lives and finances upended by medical bills resulting from a bout with the virus.

Their desks and coffee tables have stacks of billing documents. They are fluent in the jargon of coronavirus medical coding, after hundreds of hours of phone calls discussing the charges with hospitals, doctors and insurers.

“People think there is some relief program for medical bills for coronavirus patients,” said Jennifer Miller, a psychologist near Milwaukee who is working with a lawyer to challenge thousands in outstanding debt from two emergency room visits last year. “It just doesn’t exist.”

Americans with other serious illnesses regularly face exorbitant and confusing bills after treatment, but things were supposed to be different for coronavirus patients. Many large health plans wrote special rules, waiving co-payments and deductibles for coronavirus hospitalizations. When doctors and hospitals accepted bailout funds, Congress barred them from “balance-billing” patients — the practice of seeking additional payment beyond what the insurer has paid.

Interviews with more than a dozen patients suggest those efforts have fallen short. Some with private insurance are bearing the costs of their coronavirus treatments, and the bills can stretch into the tens of thousands of dollars.

“There are things I’ve researched, and known I should do, but I have a fear of being blindsided by the bills,” said Lauren Lueder, a 33-year-old teacher who lives in Detroit. She has depleted $7,000 in savings to pay for treatment so far. “You end up with a battery of tests, and every single thing adds up. I don’t have the disposable income to constantly pay for that.”

For 10 months, The New York Times has tracked the high costs of coronavirus testing and treatment through a crowdsourced database that includes more than 800 medical bills submitted by readers. If you have a bill to submit, you can do so here.

Those bills show that some hospitals are not complying with the ban on balance billing. Some are incorrectly coding visits, meaning the special coronavirus protections that insurers put in place are not applied. Others are going after debts of patients who died from the virus, pursuing estates that would otherwise go to family members.

Hospitals and insurers say that they have tried to adapt to the different billing guidance for the pandemic, but that confusion can arise when new charge codes are created and new rules set up quickly.

Coronavirus patients face significant direct costs: the money pulled out of savings and retirement accounts to pay doctors and hospitals. Many are also struggling with indirect costs, like the hours spent calling providers and insurers to sort out what is actually owed, and the mental strain of worrying about how to pay.

Ms. Miller, like many other patients, described trying to sort out her complicated medical charges — in her case in color-coded folders — while also battling the mental “brain fog” that affects as many as half of coronavirus long-haul patients.

“I have a Ph.D., but this is beyond my abilities,” she said. “I haven’t even begun to look at my 2021 bills because we’re still dealing with 2020 bills. When the bills come nonstop, you can only deal with so much.”

The United States is estimated to have spent over $30 billion on coronavirus hospitalizations since the pandemic began, according to Chris Sloan, a principal at the health research firm Avalere. The average cost of each hospital stay is $23,489. Little research has been published on how much of that cost is billed to patients.

“The government is focused on getting the vaccine out, but it doesn’t look like there is anyone out there thinking more about the long-term impacts on the people experiencing unusually high costs from Covid,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a former Obama administration health policy adviser and co-chair of the Covid Patient Recovery Alliance, a new nonprofit that plans to study the issue.

Patients who have tried to take advantage of their insurers’ cost waivers are sometimes finding themselves thwarted by hospitals and providers that don’t code their bills as related to coronavirus. Without the right coding, the patients’ normal deductibles and co-payments apply.

One coronavirus patient in Chicago recounted spending 50 hours trying to get the coding for an M.R.I. scan changed, to show it was related to coronavirus. His insurer will pay the entire bill if that happens — but if not, he is responsible for $1,600. So far, the issue is still unresolved.

“I’ve heard so many stories of people being completely stymied filling out reimbursement forms and trying to get insurance to cover them,” said Senator Tina Smith, Democrat of Minnesota, the lead sponsor of a bill to make coronavirus care free. “It’s almost as if the system is designed to make it hard to get reimbursed.”

Congress mandated that insurers make coronavirus testing free last spring, but never wrote a similar requirement for treatment coverage — in part because insurers were volunteering to waive patient costs, she said.

Insurers are now starting to wind down those special protections: Aetna, Anthem and UnitedHealthcare — three of the country’s largest health plans — have ended some portion of their waivers this year. They have decided to treat the virus the same as the many other diseases that send patients to doctors’ offices and hospitals.

Some emphasized they are now focused on ensuring patients get Covid vaccines without facing any costs.

“There was a feeling that many private plans were initially covering treatment, but now that is petering out and leaving people on the hook,” Senator Smith said.

Some Covid financial long-haulers never became ill themselves, but are overwhelmed by the bills that deceased loved ones left behind.

Rebecca Gale, 64, lost her husband of 25 years, Michael, to coronavirus last summer. Their insurance fully covered most of the “big stack” of medical bills that Ms. Gale received after his death. But it paid only a small portion of the $50,009 air ambulance bill for Mr. Gale’s transport between hospitals when his condition was deteriorating.

“I cry every day; this is just another thing that breaks my heart, that on top of losing my husband I have to deal with this,” Ms. Gale said.

The family’s health insurance plan limits its coverage of air ambulances to $10,000, and the air ambulance company spent months pursuing an additional $40,009 from Mr. Gale’s estate. Ms. Gale retired last year, from a job at an Ohio automotive factory stamping car parts, anticipating she would get to spend more time with her husband. After he died and the bills started to show up, she considered looking for a part-time job to help pay the charges.

Health care companies have discretion over what to do about the debts of deceased patients, sometimes pursuing their estates for reimbursement.

The air ambulance company, PHI Medical, declined to comment on Mr. Gale’s bill but said in a statement that it “followed the regulatory requirements” for billing coronavirus patients. It did cancel the charges, however, after The Times inquired about the bill.

Shubham Chandra left a well-paying job at a New York City start-up partly to manage the hundreds of medical bills resulting from his father’s seven-month hospitalization. His father, a cardiologist, died from coronavirus last fall.

For months he has spent 10 to 20 hours a week working through the charges, using his mornings for reading through new bills, and his afternoons for calls to insurers and hospitals. His spreadsheet recently showed 97 bills rejected by insurance with a potential of over $400,000 the family could owe. Mr. Chandra tells providers that his father is no longer alive, but the bills continue to accumulate.

“A large part of my life is thinking about these bills,” he said. “It can become an impediment to my day-to-day. It’s hard to sleep when you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding debts.”

Some coronavirus patients are postponing additional medical care for long-term side effects until they can resolve their existing debts. They are finding that long-haul coronavirus often requires visits to multiple specialists and many scans to resolve lingering symptoms, but they worry about piling up more debt.

Irena Schulz, 61, a retired biologist who lives in South Carolina, became ill with coronavirus last summer. She has multiple lingering side effects, including problems with her hearing and her kidneys. She recently received a $5,400 bill for hearing aids (to help with coronavirus-related hearing loss) that she had expected her health insurance to cover.

She has eschewed trips to the emergency room when feeling ill because she worries about the costs. She’s managing her kidney-related pain by herself, at home, until she feels she can afford to see a specialist.

“I keep on with Tylenol and drinking a lot of water, and I’ve noticed it does help if I drink a lot of pineapple juice,” she said. “If the pain gets past a certain threshold, I’ll see a doctor. We’re retired, we’re on a fixed income, and there are only so many things you can accumulate on the credit card.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/upshot/covid-bills-financial-long-haulers.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage 

 

 

 

 

Friday, May 14, 2021

Health Care Reform Articles - May 14, 2021

 

US health insurers report billions in first quarter as small providers face stress

UnitedHealth Group, reported $4.9bn in profits in the first quarter of 2021 while CVS Health reported $2.2bn 

by - The Guardian - May 9, 2021

US health insurance companies beat analyst expectations and reported billions in profits in the first quarter of 2021, after making a windfall in the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The insurers’ success comes as small healthcare providers face unprecedented financial stress and millions of Americans struggle to cover health costs. The large profits reaped by the insurance firms are also likely to increase criticism of the US healthcare sector.

The nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group, reported $4.9bn in profits in the first quarter of 2021 compared to $3.4bn in the same period in 2020 – a 44% increase. The higher than anticipated profits prompted the company to raise its projections for the year.

Anthem also beat estimates in its report of $1.67bn in profits in the first three months of 2021, a 9.5% increase from the same period last year. Humana’s net income was $828m in the first quarter, a 75% increase from the same period the year before.

CVS Health, which owns the Aetna health insurance provider and drugstores, reported $2.2bn in profits, up from $2bn in the same quarter a year before.

Cigna said on Friday its net income fell to $1.17bn from $1.19bn in the same period last year, but it still raised its forecasts for the year. Together, the companies represent the country’s five biggest health insurers by membership.

Insurers’ financial success is not reflected across the healthcare system. Small healthcare providers such as independent doctor’s office and rural hospitals have been in a financial crunch, or closed, during the pandemic. Emergency medical service systems and some larger hospitals have also been under severe financial pressure.

Health insurers have been insulated from this stress because there were sharp declines in expensive, elective procedures, such as hip replacement surgery. People also delayed or skipped doctor’s appointments because of fears of Covid-19’s spread or concerns about the cost of medical care during a recession.

Allison Hoffman, a health law expert at the University of Pennsylvania, explained: “Insurers’ Covid-related costs have been far smaller than their pandemic-related savings.”

Last year, insurers warned medical use could soar when Covid-19 cases decrease and people are more comfortable visiting a doctor’s office. In earnings calls this quarter, health insurance executives said they expect medical use to be normal or slightly above normal, but not extreme, in the second half of the year.

Anthem’s executive vice-president and chief financial officer, John Gallina, said it was too early to see pent-up demand.

“Folks were able to get access to care in 2020 when a lot of the stay-at-home rules were relaxed,” Gallina told analysts. “So at this point in time, we are taking a very cautious approach, certainly monitoring all of the variables, but we still believe that our original outlook for utilization is appropriate and prudent.”

CVS Health’s chief financial officer and executive vice-president, Eva Boratto, said in an earnings call this week: “Covid-19 is expected to have a minimal impact on consolidated financial results for the year.”

Insurers are required to return part of the profits to the individuals and employers who use their services because of the Affordable Care Act’s cap on insurance company profits.

Some insurers potentially offset some share of the rebates by reducing premiums or providing a premium credit to people in 2020. Many also waived treatment fees for insured patients with Covid-19. Those waivers are now being phased out.

Anthem, UnitedHealth and Aetna rolled back the waivers this year, while Humana has dropped them for some customers. Covid-19 vaccinations and most coronavirus tests are still free for people under federal law.

The California representative Katie Porter was one of 10 Democratic representatives to write to Anthem, UnitedHealth and CVS Health last week to ask them to continue covering costs for Covid-19 treatment. “To do anything less can and will harm the members who pay your salaries and who you are committed to serve,” wrote the members, including Pramila Jayapal, of Washington, and Cori Bush, of Missouri.

The insurers’ lobby America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) said that an August statement from its president and CEO, Matt Eyles, still reflected the lobby’s position on profits during the pandemic. “American consumers, businesses and taxpayers are protected by provisions in federal and state laws that require health insurance providers to deliver premium rebates and put money back into their pockets,” Eyles said.

Hoffman predicted insurers would be under more legislative and public pressure to answer for high profits if they continue into the year.

“I don’t necessarily blame them for last year, because nobody could have predicted what the year looked like,” Hoffman said. “But when you come out with such high profits at the end of the year, maybe you use this as an opportunity to do some good things in return.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/08/us-health-insurance-companies-2021-first-quarter 

 

He Bought Health Insurance for Emergencies. Then He Fell Into a $33,601 Trap.

Since the Trump administration deregulated the health insurance industry, there’s been an explosion of short-term plans that leave patients with surprise bills and providers with huge revenue.


In the spring of 2019, Cory Dowd suddenly found himself without health insurance for the first time. A self-employed event planner, he had just finished a Peace Corps stint that provided health benefits, but he was still more than a year away from starting a graduate program that would provide coverage through his university.

So, like countless others in an online world, he went insurance shopping on the internet.

But the individual insurance market he was about to enter was one dramatically changed under President Donald Trump’s push to dismantle Obamacare, offering more choices at cheaper prices.

Dowd is well-educated and knew more than most about how traditional health insurance works. But even he did not understand the extent to which insurers could offer plans that looked like a great deal but were stuffed with fine print that allowed companies to deny payment for routine medical events.

Not bound by the strict coverage rules of the Affordable Care Act, the short-term plans that Dowd signed up for have been dubbed “junk insurance” by consumer advocates and health policy experts. The plans can deny coverage for people with preexisting conditions, exclude payments for common treatments and impose limits on how much is paid for care.

Dowd, like millions of other Americans who have flocked to such plans in the past three years, only saw what looked like a great deal: six-month coverage offered through an agency called Pivot Health, whose website touts the company as a “fast-growing team obsessed with helping you find the right insurance for your needs.”

Monthly premiums for the two short-term plans he bought were surprisingly cheap at around $100 a month each, with reasonable co-pays for routine doctor visits and treatments. Best of all, the first plan he bought promised to cover up to $1 million in claims, the second up to $750,000. That should more than do it, he thought. Dowd was 31 and healthy but wanted protection in case of a medical emergency. He signed up and began paying his premiums without closely reading the details.

Then he was hit with the very kind of emergency he had feared. And he wasn’t protected after all.

Short-term plans have been around for decades, and are meant to temporarily bridge coverage gaps. Under the Affordable Care Act they were limited to three months. But when the Trump administration allowed them to be extended to nearly a year, they became a fast-growing and lucrative slice of the insurance industry.

Because these plans are not legally bound by the strict rules of the ACA, not only do they come with hefty restrictions and coverage limitations, but insurers can search through patients’ past medical histories to find preexisting conditions.

All companies selling short-term plans have to do is acknowledge that they are not ACA-compliant and may not cover everything — a disclosure the insurers insist they do.

Still, the Biden administration faces a challenge on what to do about the proliferation of such plans.

Once in office, President Joe Biden quickly moved to make enrolling in comprehensive ACA coverage easier and make plans more affordable. On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced 940,000 people had signed up for ACA plans this spring after enrollment was reopened in February. In many states, enrollment will run through the summer.

Yet, while health policy experts say ACA expansion is important, it does not specifically address those who remain in plans outside the health care law and could be at risk for financial ruin.

“The Biden administration is going to have to find a way to put the genie back in the bottle,” said Stacey Pogue, a health policy analyst for Every Texan, an Austin-based advocacy group.

True numbers of how many people have noncompliant plans remain elusive, as such plans often fly under regulatory radar and industry tracking. Still, an investigation last year by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded that at least 3 million consumers had short-term limited duration plans in 2019, the last year for which information was available. That was a 27% jump from the previous year, when deregulation began in earnest, the investigation found.

“I would not be surprised if the numbers increased even more last year,” said committee chair Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., in an emailed statement. He and others worry that people who lost employer-sponsored health coverage during the pandemic may have been drawn to short-term and other noncompliant insurance without fully understanding what they were buying.

Short-term insurers also do not have to adhere to the ACA rule on how much money they can take for overhead and profit — which means they can pay out less in claims.

Under the health care law, insurers are generally allowed to keep only about 15 to 20 cents of every premium dollar collected, or else be forced to offer rebates to customers. The rule was created to ensure most of the money collected under the ACA went to member claims and quality improvement.

But a ProPublica analysis of 2020 insurance company financial filings found that insurers offering plans outside the law typically kept higher percentages of premiums collected, sometimes much higher.

For instance, Golden Rule, a United Healthcare subsidiary and the nation’s largest issuer of short-term plans, collected $1.6 billion in premiums in 2020 from its various offerings, up from $1.47 billion the previous year. Of that, the company paid roughly 58% toward members’ medical claims in 2020, according to year-end financial statements submitted to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a regulatory organization. In 2019, about 62% went to claims, the filing showed.

Companion Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina that underwrites plans sold by Pivot Health, including the one Dowd bought, paid out about 67% in health and accident claims from the $294 million in premiums it collected last year, according to its filing.

One notable filing was that of Florida-based American Financial Security Life Insurance Company, which underwrites short-term and other noncompliant plans. Last year, according to its filings, AFSLIC paid just 26% in health and accident claims out of the $31 million it collected in premiums. It is nearly the exact opposite of what the ACA demands of insurers.

“That is simply outrageous. No other word for it,” said Ken Janda, former CEO of a Houston-based regional insurance company who is now an adjunct professor in population health at the University of Houston College of Medicine and who reviewed the financial filings for ProPublica. “It’s a breach of trust.”

Mike Camilleri, CEO of AFSLIC, dismissed the criticism and said it is misleading to base his company’s loss ratio on its premiums collected versus claims paid. He said those reported numbers do not reflect the full financial picture by taking into account financial reserves or claims submitted but not yet paid. A truer percentage would be “in the mid-50s,” he told ProPublica.

Companies offering noncompliant plans also say it is inaccurate and unfair to compare their plans to those offered under the ACA. Because the narrower plans are typically cheaper, insurers say, they need to take a higher percentage of consumer premiums to cover administrative costs per policy.

“Short term insurance provides an important and affordable option for many consumers in need of temporary and flexible coverage lengths,” Maria Gordon Shydlo, a UnitedHealthcare spokesperson, said in an emailed statement regarding Golden Rule.

While short-term plans are not for everyone, she said, limiting access to them “may have unintended consequences in increasing the number of uninsured.”

BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina did not respond to multiple email and phone requests for comment.


 

Last July, Cory Dowd’s nagging abdominal pain was getting worse. At the emergency room at Mather Hospital in Port Jefferson, New York, near where he was temporarily living with his mother during the pandemic, he was diagnosed with appendicitis and had a routine appendectomy.

He assumed his insurance would cover the cost. Then he started getting notices of overdue medical bills. The initial hospital bill totaled more than $41,000.

By November 2020, a final hospital statement showed insurance had paid just $1,682 and Dowd still owed $33,600. By then, he was at Duke University pursuing graduate degrees in business and public policy and had no idea what to do.

When the hospital’s billing office urged Dowd to file an insurance appeal, he dug into his policy paperwork. As he read through a long list of exclusions and disclaimers, he found one addressing surgical services that limited coverage to “usual and customary charges, not to exceed $2,500 per surgery.”

“I do have to wonder exactly what kind of surgical procedure can be had for $2,500," he said in a mix of fury and frustration.

When told of Dowd’s experience, Jeff Smedsrud, Pivot’s CEO, said he was surprised and advised Dowd to appeal directly to Pivot. He criticized the hospital for billing Dowd what insurance did not pay.

“They should accept the amount,” he said of the $1,682 insurance payment.

Mather countered that the insurer is at fault for not living up to its contract with the hospital to pay 85 percent of charges. The hospital appealed the insurance payment but lost, a hospital spokesperson said in an email.

The hospital spokesperson added that the insurer had told the hospital Dowd was responsible for any balance because his short-term plan did not fully cover the treatment. Dowd recently applied to the hospital’s financial assistance program, which put a hold on further bills while his case is considered.

On Friday Dowd said he received an email from Pivot saying his outstanding hospital bill would be covered after all.

The whole thing has left Dowd reeling. He knew to look at deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums and payment caps to ensure he would be protected, but he’s still on the hook.

“It’s one thing for a company to create a cheap plan designed to cover some basic expenses,” he said. “It’s another to market these plans with maximum benefits as high as $750,000. I am hard-pressed to imagine them ever getting close to those maximums with restrictions like $2,500 for a surgery. It seems these insurance policies are not created and sold in good faith but are designed to look like legitimate plans that don’t cover what the policy holders expect."


In late 2017, the Republican-led Congress slipped into its sweeping tax reform bill a provision to eliminate the penalty for failing to have health insurance that meets the ACA’s criteria. While the individual mandate remained — a cornerstone of the law requiring most everyone to have comprehensive coverage — the deterrent for violating it disappeared.

Then, just weeks later, the Trump administration proposed a new rule to extend short-term plans to just shy of one year, with the option to renew for up to three years. The new rule also allowed short-term insurers to retain medical underwriting, an industry practice of basing coverage and price on the insured’s medical history. It is illegal in ACA-compliant plans.

The short-term plan expansion was quickly challenged by critics but went into effect in the fall of 2018; it was upheld by a federal judge the year after and an appeals court panel last year. Some individual states, however, have since acted to limit the plans’ duration and scope.

The Trump White House vigorously defended its deregulatory actions as friendly to both consumers and taxpayers. Eliminating the penalty for having a non-ACA-compliant plan “will enable consumers to decide for themselves what value they attach to purchasing insurance,” according to a 2019 White House Council of Economic Advisers report on deregulation.

The report did, however, acknowledge pitfalls: “Some consumers who choose not to have ACA-compliant coverage might have higher healthcare expenditures than they expected and lack coverage. This would not necessarily mean these consumers were unwise in their choice of insurance; they were unfortunate.”

“This isn’t a coincidence,” said Dania Palanker, assistant research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “The administration loudly signaled that short-term plans should be sold as cheap long-term coverage. The telemarketers and lead generating websites heard the signal loud and clear.”

Complaints to consumer advocacy groups and state regulatory offices began to surface of vague if not outright fraudulent coverage promises, including assurances that the narrower plans were as good as or better than individual plans offered on the ACA exchange.

Shopping online has proven especially tricky. Paid advertisements often appear atop searches for health insurance, with names that imply ACA compliance, such as obamacare-plan.com or HealthCare.com.

The 2020 congressional investigation found that broker enrollment for short-term plans rose 120% toward the end of 2019 ACA open enrollment, which suggests the marketers were especially aggressive as people searched for coverage.

Pushing the plans was also lucrative, the investigation found. Brokers selling noncompliant plans earned on average a 23% commission on every plan sold. The average commission rate for an ACA-compliant plan was 2%.

In March 2020, just as the pandemic took hold, Brookings Institution researchers launched a “secret shopper” experiment to gauge how those selling noncompliant plans answered questions about COVID-19 coverage.

Posing as an uninsured 36-year-old single woman with no preexisting conditions, senior research assistant Kathleen Hannick called nine brokers or agents in three states to ask about short-term plans. Hannick declined to name the companies or the states.

When asked if the plans covered COVID-19 treatment, the salespeople were quick to offer reassurance, she said. But once the pitches were checked against plan documents, the majority of the answers were false, unclear or misleading. Similarly, five of six salespeople gave inaccurate or misleading answers about when COVID-19 would be considered a preexisting condition that could limit future coverage.

“Not until a doctor says you got it,” Hannick said one broker replied. “You can have symptoms all day long; you don’t know what that is. That could be the flu.” The broker encouraged getting a policy “now, before that happens.”

Such advice contradicts plan terms defining a preexisting condition and also fails to disclose possible scrutiny of past medical conditions or coverage waiting periods.

“Going into the calls I was not prepared for receiving information that was just false,” Hannick told ProPublica. “It’s startling to think how many people might have gone into the pandemic with a false sense of security regarding how much coverage they actually had.”


Katrina Black, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 2019, began looking for health insurance that summer. Then 26, she had just moved from Boston to Austin, Texas, after undergoing endometriosis surgery in Massachusetts while covered under a student plan.

Her new job as a nonprofit lawyer provided health benefits but didn’t start until fall, and she needed coverage immediately to continue post-surgical treatment. She typed “healthcare.gov” into her computer, hoping to find an ACA plan with a subsidy to lower the cost. A pop-up appeared asking for her zip code and phone number. She entered both, not knowing she was being steered away from the government site.

Within minutes, her phone began ringing. It rang continuously for days as brokers tried to sell her health plans, many of which she had never heard of before.

One broker even apologized for the telemarketing bombardment. “What do you need?” she recalled the broker asking.

Black explained she wanted a thorough, affordable plan to briefly cover costs of ongoing care, including several physical therapy sessions a week, medical tests and specialist appointments.

When told that she would be covered, Black said she and her husband enrolled with AdvantHealth, which sells short-term plans underwritten by American Financial Security Life Insurance. Together they paid $490 per month. To enroll, she answered health eligibility questions, including if she was pregnant, undergoing fertility treatment or in the process of adopting a child.

The questionnaire also asked if in the past five years she or her husband had been diagnosed or treated for, or had taken medication for, about two dozen conditions, including cancer, stroke, heart disease and diabetes. It asked if they had mental health issues or alcohol or drug dependency, and if she or her husband were obese.

Black marked “no” to all. Endometriosis was not on the list. Yet one day at a physical therapy session, she was told the bills for her visits were not being paid. Black said the insurer told her it was probably a clerical error.

But then Black got a benefits explanation showing that her plan had indeed paid nothing. When she called again, she said, she was told all her claims had been denied because her endometriosis was not covered. “It never occurred to me to specify I had had endometriosis. I said I had just had surgery for it, and I was told I would be covered,” Black said, adding that she was dumbfounded that a preexisting condition could be denied. “I didn’t think they could do that anymore.”

Between premiums and uncovered care, Black faced more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket costs from the few months she had her policy. She caught a break when the employer-sponsored plan at her new job agreed to pay about half of the previous claims. She filed a complaint with the Texas Department of Insurance against the short-term insurance company and the broker who sold coverage to her, alleging deceptive marketing and failure to pay claims.

She lost. The state agency wrote to Black in July 2020 and said, “The claims were denied correctly due to non-covered services.”

The letter further said TDI could not intervene between Black and the broker and suggested she hire a lawyer.

AdvantHealth did not respond to email and phone requests for comment.


On March 11, President Joe Biden signed into law a massive $1.9 trillion economic package known as the American Rescue Plan. Tucked inside was an extension of the special enrollment period to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, subsidizing COBRA payments that could help people keep their existing health coverage after leaving or losing jobs, and expanding the federal assistance that lowers ACA plan premiums.

But will it be enough to transition people out of non-ACA-compliant plans?

Some health policy experts worry that many who have short-term and other noncompliant plans do not yet realize those plans’ limits and, even if they do, may be reluctant to switch.

Just having the option to change plans may be insufficient. “It will take the same level of intentionality that got people on these plans to get them off of them,” said Dorianne Mason, director of health equity for the National Women’s Law Center.

Smedsrud, the Pivot Health CEO, said he recently sent emails to his short-term plan members to tell them they might now be eligible for a subsidy that could help them afford a more comprehensive plan and should consider switching — even if it meant he lost customers.

He insisted short-term plans have a place but said they should never be sold as or considered a substitute for comprehensive coverage. He also acknowledged there were some industry “bad apples” who are taking advantage of the confusion.

“I would not be opposed to reforms in short-term plans,” he said, including reinstating limits on duration. “Shame on all of us if some people feel tricked.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/junk-insurance?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=feature 

 

Wednesday, May 5, 2021

Health Care Reform Articles - May 10, 2021

‘Why Is It So Expensive?’

We Asked People From Around the
World What They Think of U.S. Health Care. 


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/opinion/healthcare-us.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Covid-19 Vaccinations: A Shot in the Arm for Universal Healthcare?

The national vaccination program has all the features of a single-payer health care system including no copays, no premiums, no insurance company blocking payment, and universal, affordable healthcare for all.

by,

As millions of us get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, we will get a first-hand glimpse of what a single-payer, Medicare-for-All approach to health care might mean, at least at the federal level. At the national level, the development and distribution of the vaccines have features of a single-payer approach to health care that set the program apart from business as usual in our private market-oriented health care system.  

The vaccine is being treated as a public good, not a private commodity, and its priority process is determined by medical need, not by ability to pay.

Vaccines are not usually profitable for pharmaceutical companies. It was therefore necessary for the federal government to subsidize the development and distribution of the Covid19 vaccines, mainly through Operation Warp Speed. As a result of these subsidies, none of us have to pay to receive the vaccine. Moreover, there are no documentation requirements to show eligibility and no disputes with insurance companies before or after vaccination. According to guidelines from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), Vaccine doses purchased with U.S. taxpayer dollars will be given to the American people at no cost.” Additionally, providers may not seek any reimbursement, including through balance billing, from a vaccine recipient.” We will all be covered automatically with no out-of-pocket costs. 

The national vaccination program has all the features of a single-payer health care system including no copays, no premiums, no insurance company blocking payment, and universal, affordable healthcare for all. The vaccine is being treated as a public good, not a private commodity, and its priority process is determined by medical need, not by ability to pay. Notably, given all this, the vaccine rollout has drawn no allegations of “socialized medicine” by those opposed to government-financed health care.

One cannot deny that administering the vaccine is a massive undertaking and undoubtedly it had a rocky start, but it has improved dramatically over the past few months. The question remains: will our first-hand experience of the federal response to the pandemic (delayed though it was) dispel the usual objections to single-payer health care? Or will most Americans conclude that the public health crisis caused by this pandemic is a one-off exception?  Since we all need access to medical care at some point—whether because of a pandemic, a variant in our genetic code, getting hit by a bus, or being struck by cancer or heart disease—it is clearly short-sighted to regard it as an exception.

Much depends on how many of us get vaccinated and experience the desired community protection and sense of solidarity underlying a universal health care model. If the outcome is positive, increased political momentum for a single-payer health system may be one of the most important results of this horrific pandemic. We’re all in this together, and what we're learning is that government is not the problem; it's the solution.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/05/04/covid-19-vaccinations-shot-arm-universal-healthcare

Opinion: Biden isn’t pursuing socialism. He’s just trying to catch up with other wealthy democracies. 

by Max Boot - Washington Post - May 5, 2021

Republicans accuse President Biden of pursuing a radical agenda that will turn the United States into a failed socialist state. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), for example, tweeted a link to a 1974 article about day care in the Soviet Union and wrote ominously: “You know who else liked universal day care.”

It’s true that Biden is proposing a considerable amount of new spending that could reignite inflation: He wants $2.3 trillion for infrastructure and $1.8 trillion for child care, family leave and education. That’s on top of the $1.9 trillion in stimulus spending that was already passed. But those investments won’t turn us into North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or the Soviet Union — all countries with government ownership of industry. They will simply bring us a little closer to the standard set by other wealthy industrialized democracies — our international peer group.

Many conservatives, of course, seem to think that, as an “exceptional” nation, we have nothing to learn from any other country. But that is hubris speaking. The coronavirus pandemic should have shattered illusions about U.S. omnipotence that not even our rapid vaccination campaign can undo. While other nations such as Brazil and India have much larger outbreaks today, the United States still has more verified covid-19 deaths (more than 576,000) than any other country. The United States remains a leader in some important areas, including our high-tech industry, our financial industry, our universities and our armed forces. But by most indexes we are an embarrassing international laggard.

The Commonwealth Fund notes that the United States spends nearly twice as much on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product than do other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Yet, compared with our peers, we have lower life expectancy, higher suicide rates, higher levels of obesity, higher rates of chronic diseases and higher rates of avoidable deaths. It’s no coincidence that the United States, alone among advanced industrialized countries, does not have universal health care. The United States is also alone among OECD nations in not having universal paid family leave.

The Economic Policy Institute notes that income inequality in the United States has been worsening for years: “From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%. … In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.” Our level of income inequality is now closer to that of developing countries in Africa and Latin American than to our European allies.

In other respects we are simply mediocre. The OECD reports that the minimum wage in the United States is the 15th highest in the world — well behind countries such as Germany and South Korea. The World Economic Forum rates U.S. infrastructure 13th in the world (Singapore is No. 1). The OECD found in 2018 that in an international test of 15-year-olds, the U.S. ranked 11th out of 79 countries in science and 30th in math.

While we spend more on prisons than other countries, we spend less on social services. The U.S. government’s share of GDP (37.8 percent) is considerably lower than in most other OECD countries (in France it’s 55.6 percent). Yet the United States is hardly a free-market paradise: The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom ranks the United States No. 20, far behind countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Denmark that have more robust welfare states.

Yes, it’s possible to combine a vibrant free market with generous social welfare spending. In fact, that’s the right formula for a more satisfied and stable society. In the OECD quality-of-life rankings — which include everything from housing to work-life balance — the United States ranks an unimpressive 10th. The leaders are Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada and Denmark — again, all emphatically capitalist countries whose governments spend a higher share of GDP than we do.

Biden’s plans, even if fully implemented, won’t cause the United States to leap to the front of the pack in quality-of-life rankings. He doesn’t have the support in Congress to address our rampant gun crime with tougher licensing for handguns and a ban on assault rifles (as occurred in Australia and New Zealand). He is not even trying to institute universal medical care — something that every other wealthy country already has — because to do so would invite the same Republican protests against “socialized medicine” that greeted the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

At most, with proposals such as federally subsidized child care, elder care, family leave and pre-K education — financed with modest tax increases on corporations and wealthy individuals — Biden is merely moving us a bit closer to the kinds of government services that other wealthy, industrialized democracies already take for granted. We will remain on the smaller-government, lower-tax end of the spectrum, but we will have a slightly stronger social safety net than we had before. That’s far from radical. It’s simply sensible.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/04/biden-isnt-pursuing-socialism-hes-just-trying-catch-up-with-other-wealthy-democracies/

Democrats seek to push Medicare expansion as part of Biden’s $1.8 trillion families plan, defying White House

Biden has sought to address the contentious issue separately, but his congressional allies see an opening

by Tony Romm and Seung Min Kim - Washington Post - April 29, 2021

Congressional Democrats are planning to pursue a massive expansion of Medicare as part of President Biden’s new $1.8 trillion economic relief package, defying the White House after it opted against including a major health overhaul as part of its plan.

The early pledges from some party lawmakers, led by prominent members of its liberal wing, threaten to create even more political tension around a package that is already facing no shortage of it. The expansion push comes as Biden on Wednesday stressed in his first address to Congress that he is still committed to making health care more affordable.

Democrats specifically aim to lower the eligibility age for Medicare to either 55 or 60, expand the range of health services the entitlement covers and grant the government new powers to negotiate prescription drug prices. Party lawmakers say their approach could offer new, improved or cheaper coverage to millions of older Americans nationwide.

Roughly 100 House and Senate Democrats led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) publicly had encouraged Biden in recent days to include the overhaul as part of his latest package, known as the “American Families Plan,” which proposes major investments in the country’s safety net programs. Yet Biden opted only to propose additional subsidies for Americans who purchase their health insurance, disappointing many lawmakers who still otherwise support the White House’s blueprint.

Sanders said Wednesday he would “absolutely” pursue a Medicare expansion as lawmakers begin to translate Biden’s economic vision into legislation. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chairman of the tax-focused Finance Committee, similarly pledged that he would “look at every possible vehicle, and that’s starting today,” to lower drug costs.

And Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Democrats’ vote-counter in the chamber, said he planned to push for Medicare reforms he saw as a “game changer.” Durbin said he didn’t know why the White House ultimately chose to exclude the policies, but he predicted tough work ahead for Democratic leaders in crafting a legislative package that has sufficient support.

“I don’t presume that we have a majority going in,” Durbin said. “I think we have to listen carefully to all the members and particularly those who have some problems, trying to resolve [them].”

The early efforts reflect a broader belief among congressional Democrats that they must more aggressively seize on their narrow but powerful majorities to push policies that long have been stalled in Washington — no matter their cost. Many party lawmakers have pushed Biden at times to spend sky-high sums, sometimes even more than the president himself says he supports, arguing that they have a political mandate to pursue vast economic change.

But health-care revisions are likely to present a significant challenge, threatening to open rifts not just between the two parties but within the Democratic caucus itself. In an early sign of trouble, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) told The Washington Post on Wednesday that he opposes expanding Medicare eligibility even as he supports broader adjustments to the Affordable Care Act.

“No, I’m not for it, period,” Manchin said when asked about efforts to expand the health-care entitlement.

Rethinking Medicare also risks touching off a fierce lobbying barrage on the part of health insurers and pharmaceutical giants, which have mobilized aggressively against such changes in the past. The corporate opposition could add to new political obstacles now facing one of the staple elements of Biden’s economic agenda.

In his address to Congress late Wednesday, Biden described his American Families Plan as a “once-in-a-generation” series of federal investments. And he specifically promised “in addition” to that package that he would try to lower health insurance premiums, reduce drug costs and pursue other reforms to the Affordable Care Act “this year.”

“This is all about a simple premise: Health care should be a right, not a privilege in America,” the president said in his address.

The families package as proposed touches on wide swaths of the economy: It endorses universal prekindergarten for all children, two years of tuition-free community college for adults, and hundreds of billions of dollars toward combating child poverty and improving child care nationwide.

The spending also has drawn staunch opposition from Republicans. Despite adding trillions to the federal deficit under President Donald Trump, GOP lawmakers blasted Biden on Wednesday for seeking to spend such sizable amounts — and for trying to couple the spending with proposed tax increases on wealthy families and profitable corporations. Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the Republican whip, sharply criticized the White House for putting forward “a big-government proposal financed largely on the backs of the American taxpayer.”

Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.), the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, similarly faulted the Biden administration for pursuing community college and prekindergarten reforms she saw as pricey and ineffective.

“We can’t spend our way out of these problems,” she said.

Manchin, a closely watched swing vote in virtually all significant policy fights in the Senate, also expressed some trepidation about tax increases outlined by Biden, including roughly a doubling of the capital gains tax rate for those earning more than $1 million per year.

“That’s a heavy lift,” Manchin said. “We just can’t make ourselves noncompetitive. We have an economy that’s ready to take off and boom. We can’t put the brakes on it.”

Most other Democrats, however, did not seem deterred — and some of the party’s leading lawmakers instead said the White House should seize on its rare opportunity to pursue even larger investments across the economy as part of the new families plan.

“This is our chance to do big things on housing, and big things on infrastructure, and big things on poverty,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the chairman of a key committee that oversees housing, told reporters Wednesday.

For many Democrats, the most enticing target is Medicare, as they try to deliver on their 2020 campaign promises to make health insurance affordable and available. Biden himself endorsed a policy report after the party’s presidential primaries — part of a “unity” effort among Democratic contenders, including Sanders — that called for lowering the Medicare enrollment age and expanding the health services it covers.

But Biden opted against including any of those provisions as part of the American Families Plan on Wednesday, choosing instead to focus on extending the additional health insurance tax benefits that Congress previously adopted as part of the most recent coronavirus stimulus. The White House pointed as part of the plan to the president’s past support for a major expansion of Medicare that would lower the eligibility to age 60 and allow the government to negotiate drug costs.

Asked about the approach, a White House official said the administration had embarked on an outreach campaign in the Capitol. The aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Vice President Harris has been phoning lawmakers to get their views on the American Families Plan.

In the meantime, some Democrats pledged to address both priorities in tandem. Sanders, who had lobbied Biden before the release of his plan, said lawmakers are working “very hard” to ensure the inclusion of a Medicare expansion. His comment came just hours after he unveiled a government study that showed Americans pay between two and four times more for prescription drugs than citizens of other countries.

Citing the new data, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also pledged to use his powerful gavel to turn to the issue in the coming weeks — stressing that tackling drug costs remains “one of my top priorities as we work to pass the American Families Plan.”

Jayapal, the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Democrats across the Capitol are likely to intensify their political push in the coming weeks out of a belief that the president’s families plan is the most efficient route to improve Medicare — given the shrinking congressional calendar and the growing need for an overhaul.

“If we have to spend all the way through August working on the jobs and families plan[s], I don’t think we have the time,” Jayapal said about calls to tackle Medicare independently. “Everything gets harder heading into the midterms.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/04/29/democrats-congress-biden-medicare/ 

Telemedicine Is a Tool. Not a Replacement for Your Doctor’s Touch.

by Elizabeth Rosenthal - NYT - April 29, 2021

Earlier in the pandemic it was vital to see doctors over platforms like Zoom or FaceTime when in-person appointments posed risks of coronavirus exposure. Insurers were forced — often for the first time — to reimburse for all sorts of virtual medical visits and generally at the same price as in-person consultations.

By April 2020, one national study found, telemedicine visits already accounted for 13 percent of all medical claims compared with 0.15 percent a year earlier. And Covid hadn’t seriously hit much of the country yet. By May, for example, Johns Hopkins’s neurology department was conducting 95 percent of patient visits virtually. There had been just 10 such visits weekly the year before.

Covid-19 let virtual medicine out of the bottle. Now it’s time to tame it. If we don’t, there is a danger that it will stealthily become a mainstay of our medical care. Deploying it too widely or too quickly risks poorer care, inequities and even more outrageous charges in a system already infamous for big bills.

The pandemic has demonstrated that virtual medicine is great for many simple visits. But many of the new types of telemedicine being promoted by start-ups more clearly benefit providers’ and investors’ pockets, rather than yielding more convenient, high-quality and cost-effective medicine for patients.

“Right now there’s a lot of focus on shiny objects — ideas that sound cool — rather than solving problems,” said Dr. Peter Pronovost, a national expert in medical innovation at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, who has written about finding the value of virtual medicine. “We know preciously little about its impact on quality.”

Even so, the financial world is abuzz with investment opportunities. In the first six months of 2020, telehealth companies raised record amounts of funding, with five start-ups each raising more than $100 million.

There are now telehealth apps that target niche markets like the mental health of pregnant women. Others provide medicines, like H.I.V. prevention pills, after a virtual consultation with their doctors. You can even do a digital eye appointment, meet with your dentist virtually to monitor your oral health and orthodontic progress and send a dermatologist a photo of a suspicious mole.

With telemedicine generously reimbursed, many practices are offering — even encouraging — patients to visit virtually. But, intentionally or not, that choice becomes a revenue multiplier, adding to patient expense.

When he noticed a curious rash, a relative was first directed to a practice’s telemedicine portal and billed $235 for a five-minute video appointment. Since rashes are often hard to evaluate in two-dimensions, he was told he needed to see a doctor in person for the diagnosis and then was charged $460 more for that visit. I worry that pandemic-era reimbursement practices have taken traditionally free screening calls and rebranded them as billed visits, with no value added.

Going forward, some types of virtual visits will deserve insurance coverage. Think of follow-up appointments to check blood pressure or an arrhythmia, where measurements can now be collected at a pharmacy or at home and transmitted to the physician digitally.

For most patients, in-person visits were required in large part because it was the only way a doctor could bill. But they are colossal time sucks, and for people with disabilities they created hardship. After a head injury last April — when I couldn’t yet drive — I was grateful for some insurance-reimbursed virtual visits with doctors and physical therapists.

But there are things that virtual medicine can miss, studies suggest.

One study showed that commercial telemedicine services were much more likely to prescribe antibiotics for children’s respiratory infections as a primary care doctor at an in-person visit. That’s in part because if you can’t see into the ear to observe a bulging drum, for example, the safer course is to overtreat — even though that’s contrary to prescribing guidelines intended to prevent antibiotic resistance.

An internist depresses the tongue and looks for pus on the tonsils to detect possible strep throat. A surgeon suspects appendicitis by pushing on the belly to see if there’s pain with rapid release.

Can psychiatrists develop a therapeutic relationship with a new patient equally well over Zoom? In some cases, sure. But better diagnosing of my own post-injury gait problems required office visits with hands-on maneuvers, like checking my reflexes and feeling my joints move.

“There is still real value in being in the same room, in touch, in the laying on of hands,” Dr. Pronovost said. Studies show that such interactions build trust, increasing the likelihood that patients will comply with treatment.

Telemedicine also raises new questions of equity. Even though it promises improved access for people in rural and underserved areas, video visits require high-speed internet, which is less common among those same groups. Alternatively, will the poor get mostly telemedicine clinics (cheaper, since no front desk staff needed), while those with good insurance have easy access to doctors’ offices?

Insurers are already rolling back their willingness from earlier in the pandemic to pay for telehealth visits. And providers and insurers are battling over reimbursement levels. Is a video call worth the same as an in-person doctor’s visit? If a commercial telemedicine-only doctor determines a patient requires an in-person assessment, is the fee discounted or waived? And how is a smart referral done if that telemedicine provider is thousands of miles away?

There is much to be resolved and fast, with scientific evidence and doctors, hopefully, driving the decisions. If we allow the market to make the choice, we risk preserving those telemedicine services that make money for business and providers — or save it for insurers — and lose those that most benefit patients.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/opinion/virtual-remote-medicine-covid.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage 

 

Students support Maine AllCare

Letter to the editor, Opinion -Ellsworth American - April 30, 2021 

Dear Editor:

We are eight senior Bachelor of Social Work students who are writing to you in support of Maine AllCare. Social workers are trained to advocate for their clients and for social justice. This is both an issue we see for our clients and is a social justice issue, so we are speaking out to the community. Maine AllCare is collecting signatures to place a universal health care resolve on the ballot for the people of Maine to vote on. Should this be enacted, the process will begin to develop universal health care for the state of Maine.

Maine AllCare did a study in 2019 that showed that 42.3 percent of mostly insured Mainers had put off medical treatment for themselves or a family member because of the cost. A total of 52.8 percent of the study population said they had experienced a significant impact on their finances because of an unexpected medical bill. There are many benefits to taking a universal health care approach in Maine. The Maine Center for Economic Policy found that with a state model that would cover all Maine residents, the state would save $1.5 billion per year. This model would fill coverage gaps and reduce out-of-pocket costs. With a universal health care coverage plan in Maine, 80 percent of households would see an increase in income because of the money they would save on insurance and other health care costs.

Maine AllCare is in the early steps of community organization that promotes a universal, publicly funded, easily used and simpler system of health care for all Mainers. Without Maine AllCare’s proposition, the health care system would stay as it is where individuals are living in poverty and experience great financial stress because of insurance payments and medical bills. Taking action on this issue and signing Maine AllCare’s petition would mean you have taken the first step to alleviating some of the issues that Mainers face in regard to health care.

As students who will be practicing social work in a few very short weeks, we urge you to sign Maine AllCare’s petition. Maine can have universal health care and Mainers can get the health care that they need and deserve.

Delaney Dow

Ellsworth

https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/students-support-maine-allcare/ 

 

Op-Ed: Want a Public Option? Not So Fast, Say Health Insurers

— The industry is spending millions to keep a big competitor out of the game

by Wendell Potter - Medpage Today - May 1, 2021

 

The nation's biggest health insurers are making it perfectly clear to lawmakers looking to fulfill campaign promises to establish a public option: you will face a massively financed lobbying and PR campaign if you even try.

And this isn't just in Washington. The industry has unleashed campaigns in at least two states so far -- Colorado and Connecticut -- where legislators are hoping to establish state-based public option plans.

Why do insurers care so much? When the status quo is extraordinarily profitable for most of them, they don't want a new competitor that might disrupt the insurance market. As a result, they're funneling millions of dollars collected from policyholders and taxpayers into what for all practical purposes is a front group to protect their ever-increasing profits.

Just recently we learned that CVS Health, which owns Aetna, alone poured $5 million into that group -- the Partnership for America's Health Care Future -- which is funded primarily by insurers and for-profit hospital chains, and run out of the PR and lobbying firm Forbes Tate.

The legislation in Connecticut facing fierce opposition from the insurers has the backing of State Comptroller Kevin Lembo and several Democratic legislators, but Gov. Ned Lamont (D) has remained quiet on the bill so far.

To try to move the governor into their camp, the CEOs of five insurers that do business in the state, including two that are based there, Cigna and Aetna, sent him a letter this month implying they would move jobs out of the state if the public option bill became law.

This tactic worked 2 years ago when lawmakers seemed to be on the verge of getting a similar bill to the governor's desk. According to published reports quoting Lembo, Cigna CEO David Cordani threatened that the company would leave Connecticut if a public option was established -- and this was despite the fact that Cigna doesn't sell coverage on the state's exchange and has relatively few large group customers in Connecticut. Cigna acknowledged it lobbied against the bill but denied the threat.

In response to the letter to Lamont, signed by CEOs of companies like Anthem and Cigna, Lembo issued a statement noting that insurers posted record profits during the pandemic and asked, "When will enough be enough ... Are legislators going to serve their constituents or do five corporations determine what becomes law in our state?"

Lawmakers and Connecticut residents are also hearing from Connecticut's Health Care Future, an offshoot of the Partnership. The Partnership spent heavily on TV and social media ads in Iowa and other states in the run-up to the Democratic primaries and caucuses last year. The ads attacked both Medicare for All, supported by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and the public option, which President Biden and other Democratic contenders backed.

Consistent in all the ads were messages like the ones I used to help write for similar front groups when I led communications at Cigna and worked with my peers across the industry to squash reforms our companies didn't like. The Partnership's ads claim that Medicare for All and even a public option would lead to higher taxes, job losses, and long waits for care. Left out of the ads: any mention of the fact that people would no longer have to pay premiums to insurers if they could enroll in Medicare or a public option.

The Partnership's affiliate in Colorado, Colorado's Health Care Future, is using essentially the same messaging, even though the legislation in that state is substantially different from the Connecticut bill. The Colorado legislation would give private insurers 2 years to begin to bring down the cost of healthcare, and the public option would only go into effect if they could not achieve the benchmarks set by the bill. One of the group's claims in Colorado is that a public option would lead to the closure of rural hospitals in the state. No mention is made of the fact that one of the Partnership's funders, HCA Healthcare, recently disclosed that its Colorado hospital's profit margins were more than 40%.

For-profit insurers are bigger, richer, and more powerful than ever. Recent mergers and acquisitions have bulked these companies up to the point that CVS Health is now No. 5 on the Fortune 500 list of American companies. UnitedHealth Group comes in at No. 7.

Their growth has been primarily at the taxpayers' expense. A whopping 72.4% of UnitedHealthcare's revenues in the U.S. during the first quarter of 2021 came from their government business, primarily through Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement plans, and the state Medicaid programs they manage. For several quarters, those programs have been their biggest -- and often only -- source of enrollment growth.

Medicare Advantage in particular has become a cash cow for big insurers. And history shows that the companies conduct business right on the line of what is legal -- often crossing it to maximize profits. Just recently, an analysis by HHS found that Humana overcharged CMS by nearly $200 million in just a single year (2015).

Insurers spend huge amounts lobbying Congress to keep the federal spigot flowing. And they have ramped up their Washington lobbying budgets to new heights this year, not only to protect their Medicare Advantage profits and to secure tax dollars to cover laid-off workers' COBRA premiums, but also, to keep a public option at bay. America's Health Insurance Plans spent more money lobbying Congress during the first 3 months of this year -- $3.9 million -- than any prior quarter. Centene, a big player in Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, increased its first quarter lobbying spend by 80%.

The big insurers have gotten bigger and more profitable as they've figured out how to game the system to their advantage in Washington and state capitals -- and they are prepared to spend whatever it takes to maintain that advantage. They certainly do not want a new competitor in the game that might be able to change the rules they've established. The status quo -- and its emphasis on profits over care -- suits them just fine.

Wendell Potter is a former vice president of Cigna turned whistleblower against the health insurance industry. He now leads the non-profit Center for Health & Democracy. After leaving the industry in 2008, he testified before Congress about the industry's abuses and became an advocate for systematically reforming America's healthcare system.

 https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/92368
 
 

Big Pharma doesn’t want us to expand Medicare. We have to fight them

- The Guardian - May 3, 2022

By lifting the ban on Medicare negotiating prescription drugs prices we can expand benefits and lower the age of eligibility
 

We are beginning to make progress in creating a government that works for all people, and not just the very wealthy. But we still have a very long way to go.

By now you’ve heard the big headlines about the American Rescue Plan that Joe Biden signed into law in March: the $1,400 direct payments, the massive expansion of the child tax credit, the extension of unemployment benefits and the production and distribution of tens of millions of vaccine doses that are desperately needed if we are going to crush this pandemic.

What you might not have heard is that we have made primary healthcare far more accessible by doubling funding for community health centers and tripling funding to get doctors, dentists and nurses into medically underserved areas. Kids who have been stuck at home for the past year will now be able to do activities this summer because of major new funding for summer and after-school programs.

These are major steps forward.

But in this time of unprecedented crises, it is not enough. Joe Biden knows that, I know that and you know that.

The agenda the president laid out in his speech on Wednesday gives Congress a good road map, but we need to go further if we are going to seriously combat the enormous economic, social, health and environmental crises facing our country.

As chairman of the Senate budget committee, I’ll take an active role in helping to draft much of this new legislation. There are a number of critical areas we will address including our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, the need to combat climate change and provide childcare for every American family. But right now, I wanted to talk to you about one area I will be especially focused on.

It is outrageous that more than 50 years after Medicare was enacted seniors still do not receive basic hearing, vision and dental coverage. Many seniors are unable to read a newspaper because they can’t afford eyeglasses, they can’t talk with their grandchildren because they can’t afford hearing aids and they have trouble eating because they can’t afford dentures.

It is also time to acknowledge that we must lower Medicare eligibility for the millions of older workers who are in desperate need of healthcare.

This pivotal moment in American history is the time for a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress to do what the American people want. We must expand Medicare benefits and lower the age of Medicare eligibility. Using our majority to take this step is not only the right thing to do for the American people – it’s good politics as well.

These steps might seem expensive, and they are. But here is something amazing. We can pay for the entire cost of these additions to Medicare by allowing the program to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs.

As incredible as it sounds the Medicare program is not allowed by law to negotiate with drug companies over the cost of medications seniors purchase. The lobbying power of the big drug companies means they are ripping off the government and charging the American people any price they want. Not only that. Because of the power of the pharmaceutical industry all Americans are forced to pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. This absurdity must end.

Negotiating drug prices is what every other major country on earth does. The Veterans Administration does it. Only Medicare is prohibited from taking this obvious step.

What we are fighting for now is the very definition of a win-win-win situation. Seniors pay lower prices for prescription drugs and receive hearing, vision and dental care. Millions more Americans become eligible to participate in the Medicare program. And we lower prescription drug costs for all Americans.

It’s almost insane to think that we would have to fight for these commonsense policies that are supported in overwhelming numbers by he American people. But it comes as no surprise that the pharmaceutical industry will use all of their power in Washington DC to try to stop them from taking place. From 1999 to 2018 drug companies spent $4.7bn lobbying the federal government. That is $233m every year. That is in addition to more than $400m in campaign contributions to federal candidates and committees and $900m to state candidate and committees.

The pharmaceutical industry, the most powerful lobby in Washington, believes that their wealth and power can prevent Congress and the president from taking action to expand Medicare and lower prescription drug prices. Well, I disagree. I believe that in the days and weeks ahead, if all of us make our voices heard we can show how powerful the American people can be when we stand together and fight back. We will not allow the greed of the pharmaceutical industry to stand in the way of Americans getting healthcare and reasonably priced prescription drugs.

As a nation we are now beginning to make some real progress in protecting the interests of the working class. Not surprisingly, the Establishment and defenders of the status quo are resisting. But, in this pivotal moment, if we have the courage to educate, organize and go forward, we will win this struggle. At the end of the day a strong grassroots movement of millions of Americans fighting for justice can and will defeat the power of Organized Money.


The Potter Report

 

Biden's Big Chance 

by Wendell Potter - Tarbell  - May 3, 2021

In last week’s speech by President Biden, something stood out to me that was overlooked by many pundits: the president spoke of the NEED to fix sky-high health insurance deductibles immediately. It's not the sexiest topic, but here's why it matters.
 

Many think that the only ones suffering in this health care system are those without insurance. They're struggling big time, but know who else is? People with BAD insurance. The fact is, millions of Americans can’t use their coverage because their deductibles are so damn high.

 

These millions of Americans with bad plans don't go to the doctor or get the care they need, like cancer treatments that could save their lives. Why? Because they don’t have enough money to cover their deductible: the amount you have to pay out of pocket before coverage kicks in.

 

Democrats are talking about providing an extra $200 billion to subsidize premiums people pay for Obamacare plans. Insurers love that idea of course. To get that money, insurers should be forced to slash or eliminate deductibles.

 

High out-of-pocket costs have become an American scandal. For now, insurance companies and their shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank. Forcing us to pay through the nose means they pay far fewer of our medical bills. It’s no wonder insurers posted record profits last year.

 

Paying high deductibles and copays is like paying a massive bill for the right to use Netflix, and then still having to pay for each minute of each episode of "Tiger King" (or whatever the hell they're showing these days). And oh yeah, it's for basic health care to keep you alive.

 

The system is a total mess that's bankrupting and killing millions of Americans. And the insurance companies are hoping we won't notice. I know because I used to work for them. The bad news for them is the President Biden has taken notice. If he acts on this, it could save a lot of lives.

https://mailchi.mp/7059271221e4/the-potter-report-10138301?e=cd732898d4

Commentary: Making health care work for Maine families like mine

Nobody with diabetes should have to ration vials of insulin. A new package would hold drugmakers accountable and make medications more affordable.