Princess Health and Feds strengthen anti-discrimination health rules. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Feds strengthen anti-discrimination health rules. Princessiccia

disabilities federal regulation gender disparities health health care health care access health care reform health communication obamacare Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act

Gusty 13:20 Add Comment

Photo from mdxipe.wordpress.com

By Danielle Ray
Kentucky Health News

The Department of Health and Human Services issued rules Friday in an effort to ensure equality in health care for women, the disabled and people who speak English as a second language.

The new provisions protect women from discrimination not only in the health coverage they obtain but in the health services they seek from providers. They also prohibit denial of health care or health coverage based on a person's sex, including discrimination based on pregnancy, gender identity and sex stereotyping.

The rule also requires providers to take reasonable steps to provide communication access to people with limited English proficiency. In addition, it requires that providers make electronic information and newly constructed or altered facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities, including providing auxiliary aids and services.

HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell called the rule "a key step toward realizing equity within our health care system." She said in an agency news release that it reinforces the central goal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, to improve access to quality health care.

The rule covers any health program or activity that receives federal funding, such as providers who accept Medicare or Medicaid; any health program that HHS administers; and federal- and state-based health insurance marketplaces and insurers that participate in them.

The new rule implements Section 1557 of the 2010 health-reform law, which is the first federal civil-rights law to prohibit discrimination based on sex in federally-funded health programs. Previously, civil rights laws enforced by the agency's civil rights office barred discrimination based only on race, color, national origin, disability, and age.

The rule does not resolve whether discrimination on the basis of an individual�s sexual orientation status alone is a form of sex discrimination under the reform law. However, the provisions leave room for the agency's civil-rights office to evaluate complaints that allege sex discrimination related to a person�s sexual orientation to determine if they can be considered sex stereotyping, which the rule prohibits. In cases where religious freedom would be violated, health-care providers are not required to follow the regulation.

A summary of the new rule can be accessed here.

Princess Health and Lown Institute/ Right Care Alliance 2016 Conference. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Lown Institute/ Right Care Alliance 2016 Conference. Princessiccia

health care reform

Gusty 08:59 Add Comment

I am back from the annual Lown Institute/ Right Care Alliance meeting in Chicago.  A considerable part of the meeting was devoted to issues that may be familiar to readers of Health Care Renewal.

Shannon Brownlee, in her keynote talk, "Introducing the Right Care Alliance," called our current US health care system "corrupt."  She noted how clinical research has been "hijacked," (see our posts on the suppression and manipulation of clinical research).  She noted how the multi-million dollar compensation of CEOs whose hospitals serve - not always well - primarily poor people (see our posts on executive compensation and mission-hostile management).  She called for a national conversation to "expose the dark matter" of medicine, and right the wrongs of a new "gilded age."

The Right Care Alliance has a Vision Statement which calls for health care in which

Healthcare is a right, not a commodified privilege, and access to healthcare is universal, equitable, and affordable. Everybody in, nobody out.

There is meaningful public transparency around costs and outcomes that matter to patients and communities.

The science and practice of medicine is free of commercial bias and the profit motive.

among other imperatives.

Not to toot our own horns too much, but Dr Adriane Fugh-Berman of PharmedOut.org and I led a workshop on deceptive pharmaceutical and device promotion in the context of health care corruption.

Hopefully, much of the conference content will eventually show up on the web, but so far one nice video summary has been produced:

Princess Health and It Has Come to This? - Donald Trump's "Truly Absurd," "Word Salad," "Gibberish" Health Care Policy. Princessiccia

Princess Health and It Has Come to This? - Donald Trump's "Truly Absurd," "Word Salad," "Gibberish" Health Care Policy. Princessiccia

deception health care reform health policy politics ppaca propaganda

Gusty 12:07 Add Comment

Health Care Renewal is officially non-partisan.  We do not endorse candidates for office, or political parties.  That does not prevent us from commenting on policy issues, and on pronouncements and actions by politicians and government officials when they relate to the issues that interest us.

So, we have criticized excessive coziness among politicians and government officials on one hand, and big health care organizations and their leaders on the other.  We have noted conflicts of interest affecting politicians, particularly the revolving door, and other shadings towards corporatism.  We have noted how health care policy discussions may focus on health care financing, while ignoring some of the bigger issues we discuss  (For example, see our discussions of health care reform, and particularly this one of the then new US Affordable Care Act). These include: leadership of health care organizations by generic managers (managerialists) who are unsympathetic or even hostile to the health care mission; deceptive practices involving marketing, the manipulation and suppression of research, stealth health policy advocacy, stealth lobbying, etc; and timidity in regulation and law enforcement, leading to outright impunity of health care leaders.

We have criticized politicians and government leaders of all parties and from all sides of the political spectrum.  For example, in retrospect we criticized the (Democratic) Clinton administration's laissez faire attitude to conflicts of interest at the National Institutes of Health (see summary here and links to older posts).  We criticized flagrant examples of the revolving door involving top Bush adminstration officials (e.g., most recently here), and yet more involving Obama administration officials (e.g., most recently here).

Yet we also acknowledge that most policy discussions by political and government figures are at least well-intended and based in some degree on the facts and knowledge of the health care context (even if we think the results might be misguided, wrong-headed, or tangential.)  So, while health care is not so far the most important issue in the tumultuous 2016 US presidential race, there has been considerable discussion of it.  Most major candidates have staked out health care positions that again appear well-intended and based to some degree on the facts and context (although my point is not to comment on their merits.)

But there has been one major exception. 

The Leading Candidate with No Health Care Plan

Donald Trump currently seems to be the leading Republican presidential candidate.  As reported by the Minnesota Post,

Trump doesn�t have a health care plan. Go to the issues section of his campaign. Really, go there, you won�t believe what you see. A typical campaign website has position papers. Trump has none. The link to 'Issues' takes you to a pretty frightening page of short embedded videos of Trump himself summarizing his positions at a level of detail that you should find insulting.

But he doesn�t even have one of those on health care.

In addition to 'Issues,' the site�s homepage has a pulldown menu called 'Positions.' I don�t get the difference, but who cares? �Positions� are actual written-out position statements, not videos, but only on five issues, none of which are remotely related to health care (nor many other major issues).

So for Trump�s health-care thinking, we have to rely on what he says in debates and speeches and, I suppose, tweets, some of which have been controversial.

The Candidate with No Health Care Policy Advisers

On February 20, 2016, Politico reported that Mr Trump's campaign also apparently has no health policy advisers.  The article noted that Mr Trump had written in one of his books that he would

Lock the best health care policy minds in a room � and don�t let them out until they�ve crafted a plan for providing terrific coverage for everyone.

But he has not said who those advisers might be.  Furthermore, the reporter was unable to determine who, if anyone, is currently advising Mr Trump about health care,

Sam Clovis, Trump�s national policy adviser, insists the campaign is talking with lots of health care experts � but declined to name any of those advisers.

'We have experts around the world who help us on these various topics,' Clovis said in an interview with POLITICO. 'We get very frank and honest input if we do not expose these people to the scrutiny of the press. � As we get further along they might want to come out of the shadows.'

However,

POLITICO scoured the landscape of notable policy wonks � from academics to lobbyists to congressional staffers to think tank fellows � but was unable to find anyone, on either side of the political divide, who acknowledged whispering health care policy tips in the billionaire�s ear. Or for that matter, of hearing of anyone who had talked to his campaign.

'He seems to be a one-man policy shop,' said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, and a leading critic of Obamacare.

So Mr Trump has no clear health care plan, and apparently no health care advisers.  Furthermore, reports of what this candidate has said about health care reveals some anomalies, to say the least.

Reducing Pharmaceutical Costs to Zero?

The Washington Post in a "Fact Checker" feature on February 18, 2016, entitled, "Trump�s truly absurd claim he would save $300 billion a year on prescription drugs," quoted Mr Trump three times on the costs of pharmaceuticals,

'We are not allowed to negotiate drug prices. Can you believe it? We pay about $300 billion more than we are supposed to, than if we negotiated the price. So there�s $300 billion on day one we solve.' �Donald Trump, remarks at Plymouth State University, Holderness, N.H., Feb. 7, 2016

'So I said to myself wow, let me do some numbers. If we competitively bid drugs in the United States, we can save as much as $300 billion a year.' �Trump, remarks in Manchester, N.H., Feb. 8

'We�re the largest drug buyer in the world. We don�t negotiate. We don�t negotiate. You pay practically the same for the country as if you go into a drug store and buy the drugs. If we negotiated the price of drugs, Joe, we�d save $300 billion a year.' �Trump, interview on MSNBC, Feb. 17

The problem here is that the $300 billion figure turns out to be ridiculous.  The Post article noted,

To put Trump�s $300-billion-a-year claim in perspective, let�s first note that Sanders cites a 2013 estimate from the Center for Economic and Policy Research that negotiated drug prices would result in savings to Medicare of between $230 billion to $541 billion over 10 years.

So for virtually the same policy, Sanders is claiming savings averaging $38 billion a year � and Trump is promising a figure eight times larger. (Clinton offers no estimated savings.)

What�s going on here? It�s unclear, because as usual the Trump campaign refuses to respond to any queries about Trump�s numbers.

Furthermore,

total spending in Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) in 2014 was $78 billion. So Trump, in effect, is claiming to save $300 billion a year on a $78 billion program. That�s like turning water into wine.

Finally,

It�s possible that Trump is being sloppy and when he discusses Medicare, he really means to say he would force government-led pricing on all prescription drugs. But the numbers don�t add up that way either.

In fact, depending on the source you consult, total annual spending on prescription drugs in the United States is between $298 billion a year to $423 billion. So that would mean Trump is claiming that he can eliminate virtually any cost to prescription drugs. It would suddenly be free!

So Mr Trump's claims made on at least three occasions about the magnitude of savings that would result from his (unoriginal) proposal to have the government negotiate drug prices were mathematically implausible, if not impossible. 

"Word Salad" about the Mandate

Rather right-wing columnist Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post on February 22, 2016, provided two sets of quotes from interviews with Mr Trump about his position on the "mandate" within the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Note that the mandate imposes a (relatively modest) extra tax on people who do not have health insurance, providing an incentive to have such insurance.  For example, on "Meet the Press,"

DONALD TRUMP: Well, on the mandate, if you look at the mandate, we had a situation where we were, Anderson Cooper, who�s terrific, by the way, and did a terrific job, but we were talking over each other. Look, I want, we�re going to repeal and replace Obamacare. Obamacare is a total and complete disaster. It�s going to be gone. We�re going to come up with a great healthcare plan, whether it�s healthcare savings accounts, we have a lot of different things. We�re going to get rid of the lines between states, we�re going to have great competitive bidding. But I say all the time, you can call it anything you want. People are not going to die in the middle of the street. People are not going to die on the sidewalk if I�m president, okay?

CHUCK TODD: Well, let me get something definitive from you on this.

DONALD TRUMP: But Chuck, I say that, excuse me, I say that to packed houses with thousands and thousands of people, Republicans mostly, and I get standing ovations. I�m not going to let that happen. If I�m president, we�re not going to have people dying on the streets. So you can call it whatever you want. I don�t call it a mandate, I just say it�s common sense.

CHUCK TODD: No, I understand that. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think that it should be a law that anybody who can afford health insurance has to have it?

DONALD TRUMP: I think, no, I think it�s going to be up to them, okay? I want it to be up to them. But I�m really talking about people that can�t afford it. We�re not going to let people die in squalor because we are Republicans, okay? That�s part of the problem with the Republicans, where somehow they got fed into this horrible position. We�re going to take care of people. But no, people don�t have to have it. We�re going to have great plans, they�re going to be a lot less expensive than Obamacare. They�re going to be private. There are going to be lots of different options. We�re going to have a lot of different options. Right now you have no options. You know why? Because the insurance company controlled Obama because they gave him a lot of money. That�s why you have lines around the states. And you can�t get competitive bidding.

Her summary was:

He insists whatever inanity he said earlier was a mistake, denies he took or takes a liberal position and declares there will not be people 'dying in the streets.' (Does he understand there is a duty now to treat people, but what we are debating is insurance?) Then he ends with assurances he is loved by crowds. Superlatives by the bushel may be funny, but they also substitute for concrete answers. It may seem like a word salad or stream of consciousness at first glance, but it is a salad he tosses up over and over again, each time avoiding close scrutiny.

An article on February 22, 2016, in the left leaning MotherJones stated that Mr Trump had already contradicted his previous approval of the "mandate,"

Trump has now made clear that he doesn't like the individual mandate after all�he just misspoke when he said that to Anderson Cooper a few days ago.

So while Mr Trump has drawn attention to his position on the mandate, that position seems hopelessly incoherent, or as Ms Rubin called it, "word salad."

More "Gibberish"

The Minnesota Post article also noted,

When asked Thursday night under Rubio�s prodding to describe his plan for health care, he said, as he always does, that he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something 'much better.' Then he says (and this is a direct quote from the debate transcript): 'I want to keep pre-existing conditions. I think we need it. I think it�s a modern age. And I think we have to have it.' This is gibberish, especially the explanation that 'I think it�s a modern age,' which may have some meaning but I can�t imagine what.

In addition, in the most recent debate, Mr Trump did emphasize that he wanted insurance companies to be able to sell policies across state lines, although his wording was not so clear,

That weird and confusing phrasing � about 'getting rid of the lines around the states,' which Rubio mocked � as best as anyone can tell means that Trump wants national health insurers to be able to offer standardized plans all over the country, instead of having to meet the particular standards and requirements imposed by individual states. Different states require different things of health insurers, which prevents national firms from offering plans in all states.

As the article noted, this is not a new idea, and how much difference this change would make is not clear. Nonetheless, even after being badgered repeatedly, Mr Trump could not add more substance to his health care plan, nor explain how he might get more substance.

With Rubio pressing in and badgering Trump from the sidelines � the same way Rubio was badgered a few weeks ago by Chris Christie and the way Trump often badgers other candidates � and with CNN�s Dana Bash following up, Trump said his three things: Repeal Obamacare and replace it with something much better, get rid of the lines around the states, and don�t let people die in streets. I always assumed that there was more to his plan, but I never came across the details. And, during the exchange Thursday night, it came out that there is no more. Here�s that chunk of the transcript so you can decide for yourself if I�m missing something. (I�ve done a tiny bit of editing for flow.)[italics added for emphasis- Ed]

BASH: Mr. Trump, Senator Rubio just said that you support the individual mandate. Would you respond?

TRUMP: I just want to say, I agree with that 100 percent, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of Obamacare. We�re going to have something much better, but pre-existing conditions, when I�m referring to that, and I was referring to that very strongly on the show with Anderson Cooper, I want to keep pre-existing conditions. I think we need it. I think it�s a modern age. And I think we have to have it. (APPLAUSE)

BASH: OK, so let�s talk about pre-existing conditions. What the insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people [who have pre-existing conditions and would be more expensive to cover] is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?

TRUMP: I think they�re wrong 100 percent. What we need � look, the insurance companies take care of the politicians. The insurance companies get what they want. We should have gotten rid of the lines around each state so we can have real competition. We thought that was gone, we thought those lines were going to be gone, so something happened at the last moment where Obamacare got approved, and all of that was thrown out the window.

The reason is some of the people in the audience are insurance people and insurance lobbyists and special interests. They got � I�m not going to point to these gentlemen, of course, they�re part of the problem, other than Ben [Carson], in all fairness. And, actually, the governor [John Kasich], too. Let�s just talk about these two, OK? Because I don�t think the governor had too much to do with this.

But, we should have gotten rid of the borders, we should have gotten rid of the lines around the states so there�s great competition. The insurance companies are making a fortune on every single thing they do. I�m self-funding my campaign. I�m the only one in either party self-funding my campaign. I�m going to do what�s right. We have to get rid of the lines around the states so that there�s serious, serious competition. And you�re going to see � excuse me. You�re going to see pre-existing conditions and everything else be part of it, but the price will be down, and the insurance companies can pay. Right now they�re making a fortune. (APPLAUSE)

BASH: But just to be specific here, what you�re saying is getting rid of the barriers between states, that is going to solve the problem...

TRUMP: That�s going to solve the problem. And the insurance companies are going to say that they want to keep it. They want to say � they say whatever they have to say to keep it the way it is. I know the insurance companies, they�re friends of mine. The top guys, they�re friends of mine. I shouldn�t tell you guys, you�ll say it�s terrible, I have a conflict of interest. They�re friends of mine, there�s some right in the audience. One of them was just waving to me, he was laughing and smiling. He�s not laughing so much anymore. Hi.
Look, the insurance companies are making an absolute fortune. Yes, they will keep pre-existing conditions, and that would be a great thing. Get rid of Obamacare, we�ll come up with new plans. But we should keep pre-existing conditions.

RUBIO: Dana, I was mentioned in his response, so if I may about the insurance companies...

BASH: Go ahead.

RUBIO: You may not be aware of this, Donald, because you don�t follow this stuff very closely, but here�s what happened. When they passed Obamacare they put a bailout fund in Obamacare. All these lobbyists you keep talking about, they put a bailout fund in the law that would allow public money to be used, taxpayer money, to bail out companies when they lost money. And we led the effort and wiped out that bailout fund. The insurance companies are not in favor of me, they hate that. They�re suing right now to get that bailout money put back in.

Here�s what you didn�t hear in that answer, and this is important, guys, this is an important thing. What is your plan? I understand the lines around the state, whatever that means. This is not a game where you draw maps...

TRUMP:...And you don�t know what it means?

RUBIO: What is your plan, Mr. Trump? What is your plan on health care?

TRUMP: You don�t know. The biggest problem...

RUBIO: ...What�s your plan?

TRUMP: ... You know, I watched him melt down two weeks ago with Chris Christie. I got to tell you, the biggest problem he�s got is he really doesn�t know about the lines. The biggest thing we�ve got, and the reason we�ve got no competition, is because we have lines around the state, and you have essentially....

RUBIO: ...You already mentioned that [inaudible] plan. I know what that is, but what else is part of your plan?...

TRUMP: ...You don�t know much...

RUBIO: ...So, you�re only thing is to get rid of the lines around the states. What else is part of your health-care plan?...

TRUMP: ...The lines around the states...

RUBIO: ...That�s your only plan...

TRUMP ... Excuse me. Excuse me.

RUBIO: ... His plan. That was the plan?...

TRUMP:...You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition. So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York or Texas, you�ll have many. They�ll compete, and it�ll be a beautiful thing.

RUBIO: Alright...So that�s the only part of the plan? Just the lines?

TRUMP: The nice part of the plan � you�ll have many different plans. You�ll have competition, you�ll have so many different plans.

RUBIO: Now he�s repeating himself.

TRUMP: No, no, no. I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago...

RUBIO:... I just watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago...

TRUMP: I watched him meltdown on the stage like that, I�ve never seen it in anybody...

BASH:...Let�s stay focused on the subject...

TRUMP:...I thought he came out of the swimming pool...

RUBIO:...I see him repeat himself every night, he says five things: Everyone�s dumb, he�s gonna make America great again...We�re going to win, win win. He�s winning in the polls...And the lines around the state. (APPLAUSE)

BASH: Senator Rubio, you will have time to respond if you would just let Mr. Trump respond to what you�ve just posed to him...

RUBIO: ... Yeah, he�s going to give us his plan now, right? OK...

BASH [to Trump]:...If you could talk a little bit more about your plan. I know you talked about...Can you be a little specific?...

TRUMP: ... We�re going to have many different plans because... competition...

RUBIO: ... He�s done it again.

TRUMP: There is going to be competition among all of the states, and the insurance companies. They�re going to have many, many different plans.

BASH: Is there anything else you would like to add to that...

TRUMP: No, there�s nothing to add. What is to add?

After being repeatedly asked about the substance of his health care policy agenda, Mr Trump only seems to have repeated the notion of selling health insurance across state lines to increase competition, interrupted by non sequiturs insulting Senator Rubio and insurance executives.  The Minnesota Post writer and I could find absolutely no other content in Mr Trump's , despite repeated inquiries about the substance of his health care plan.

It does seem reasonable to describe Mr Trump's health care policy ideas as gibberish.

Summary 

Health care and public health affect all Americans, and all people around the world.  Health care in the US is more expensive and less accessible than it is in many other developed countries.  For all the money the country spends, there is no clear evidence that the quality of patient care, or patients' outcomes are better than, or sometimes even comparable to those of other countries  The reforms embodied in the Affordable Care Act (ACA, PPACA, "Obamacare') have increased the proportion of insured patients, but insurance remains expensive for many, and insurance coverage now often has major gaps that mean a major illness can bankrupt a middle-class patient.

Furthermore, the law has done nothing to reduce concentration of power in health care.  It has done nothing to make health care leaders more accountable, especially for their organization's unethical or even criminal behavior, decrease their ability to line their pockets regardless of such behavior, and thus reduce their impunity.  It will not obviously decrease conflicts of interest affecting those who make decisions about patient care or health policy, lock the revolving door between government and the health care industry, end manipulation of clinical research to serve vested interests, or suppression of research whose results offend such interests, etc, etc.

So health care policy is increasingly important, and increasingly demands serious discussion.  A US presidential campaign ought to provide some impetus for such discussion, although health care policy is certainly not the only thing that needs to be discussed.

Most presidential candidates have at least attempted a serious discussion of health policy, if not in person, then in position papers or on their web-sites.

However, the currently leading candidate for the Republican nomination does not seem to have serious ideas about health care. Yet he has said "We�re going to come up with a great healthcare plan."  To substantiate such claims, he has repeated a few vague talking points, and when challenged, seems unable to manage any substantive conversation beyond them.  Some of his verbal pronouncements have been nothing short of ridiculous.  

"in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility...." said a 20th century world leader who inspired adulation, and led to disaster.  

We live in perilous times when a candidate with such reckless approaches to critical problems continues to attract adulation.

ADDENDUM (29 February, 2016) - This post was republished on the Naked Capitalism blog on February 28, 2016.  

ADDENDUM (1 March, 2016) - This post was republished on OpEdNews on February 29, 2016.

Princess Health and Most insured through Kynect will pay more in 2016; Kentucky Health Cooperative seeks 25 percent increase.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Most insured through Kynect will pay more in 2016; Kentucky Health Cooperative seeks 25 percent increase.Princessiccia

Affordable Care Act health care reform health insurance insurance coverage insurance exchange Kynect Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Gusty 19:16 Add Comment

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

The federal health law requires that insurers planning to significantly increase premiums for policies on a health-insurance exchange to submit their rates by June 1 for review. Many insurance carriers across the country, including four in Kentucky, are requesting double-digit increases in insurance premiums for 2016.

For the individual market, the requested average rates from companies already participating in the Kynect exchange are:

• Anthem Health Plans, 14.6 percent increase;
• CareSource Kentucky, 11.8 percent increase;
• Humana Inc., 5.2 percent increase;
• Kentucky Health Cooperative, 25.1 percent increase;
• WellCare Health Plans, a 9.28 percent decrease.

The rates are not final, but are subject to approval by the state Department of Insurance, "so we don�t yet know what the final numbers will be," Gov. Steve Beshear said. "Changes still may occur. Rates should be finalized sometime in mid-July. We do expect that some plan rates will go down, some will go up and some will stay close to the same as last year."

Consumers will have more choices when enrollment opens, because the exchange is adding three new insurers to its individual market. United Healthcare will be offering coverage statewide, Aetna policies will be available in 10 counties, and Baptist Health Plan, now Bluegrass Family Health, will offer coverage in 79 counties. CareSource will expand its coverage area from 16 to 67 counties.

With these additions, at least three insurers will be offering Kynect coverage in every county, said Ronda Sloan of the Department of Insurance.

"When open enrollment begins this fall, Kentuckians should seek information about their individual plans, not average costs," Beshear said. "System-wide averages don�t give a good picture of what an individual�s out-of-pocket costs may be."

It is also important to keep in mind that premiums cannot be viewed in isolation, and you should look at the individual market dynamics that impact how much consumers pay for their health care coverage.

Why are most rates going up?

For an insurance company to survive, its cost of providing benefits should be less than the premiumums paid for those benefits. Companies now have had more than a full year of claims data to inform pricing structures, and many insurers are finding that people who buy policies on exchanges are considerably older and sicker than anticipated, reports Megan McArdle of Bloomberg News.

As a result, insurers are incurring greater costs of providing benefits than expected. Initially, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said that about 40 percent of the exchange policies should be bought by people between 18 and 35, the most healthy age group, to keep the exchanges financially stable. However, according to HHS data, that group accounted for only 28 percent of the policies in 2014 and 2015.

Not only do older people have more complex and more costly health needs, rising premiums in some state-based exchanges are due in part to the uncertainty in the overall health-insurance marketplace. First, there is much uncertainly about the reform law's "risk corridor program," which was designed to have insurers share the financial risk of offering policies on Obamacare exchanges from 2014 through 2016.

The program creates a pool of money to reduce risk for insurers: Those that pay out less in benefits than they collect in premiums pay into the pool; those whose premiums don't cover the cost of providing benefits take money from the pool. However, a recent Standard & Poor's report says the risk corridor will probably not get enough money from insurers with profitable exchange plans, so many insurers must raise premiums to support themselves.

Kentucky Health Cooperative needs shoring up

In another potentially worrisome sign, some insurers had risk-corridor receivables that exceeded half of their reported capital, and Kentucky Health Cooperative had the second-highest level of receivables as a percentage of capital: 117 percent, reports CNBC. That helps explain why it has asked for the largest average increase in premiums this year, 25 percent, and last year, 20 percent. The cooperative is one of several start-ups funded by the reform law to encourage competition in states; it sells most of the 106,000 private policies on Kynect.

Other reasons for the overall premium increases include rising health-care costs, especially for prescription drugs, Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said on "PBS NewsHour" Wednesday night.

Speaking nationally, Levitt said state regulation means the requested premiums "will come down, in some cases by a lot." He said "Insurers are jockeying for position in these new marketplaces [so] there are some good deals to be had, but consumers really have to look around,"

David Blumenthal, president of The Commonwealth Fund, which researches health and social policy, said exchanges like Kynect "give people the ability to comparison-shop much more easily than before."

Princess Health and UK Board of Trustees OKs $31 million plan to outfit another floor of new hospital with eye toward federal certification for heart work.Princessiccia

Princess Health and UK Board of Trustees OKs $31 million plan to outfit another floor of new hospital with eye toward federal certification for heart work.Princessiccia

cardiac care cardiovascular disease health care access health care industry health care reform Medicaid Medicare University of Kentucky

Gusty 13:55 Add Comment

The University of Kentucky Board of Trustees has given UK HealthCare the green light for its $31 million plan to outfit the eighth floor of Pavilion A at UK Chandler Hospital over the next few months to make room for a growing cardiovascular program and to clear the way for a federal "Center of Excellence" certification.

After the project is complete, the floor will hold 64 beds, including 24 intensive-care beds for the cardiovascular program that offers heart transplantation, artificial hearts and ventricular devices, reflecting UK's focus on receiving the federal certification.

In the near future, such a designation will be necessary to get enough referrals from doctors and smaller hospitals to maintain important services, including cardiovascular services, and to guarantee that Kentuckians can get the care they need inside the state, Dr. Michael Karpf, executive vice president for health affairs, said in an interview with Kentucky Health News this spring.

Karpf and other UK HealthCare officials are also recommending a $30 million cost-reduction program for their system because Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are expected to decline as competition stiffens over the next few years, reports Linda Blackford of the Lexington Herald-Leader.

In response to these forces, UK has a goal to secure half the available business from out-of-state competitive areas over the next 10 years to remain viable in a highly competitive market. And, focusing on complex care should drive revenue for the hospital because UK makes money on the complex stuff, Karpf told KHN.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/06/10/2673382/uk-healthcare-using-30-million.html#storylink=cpy

The $592 million, 12-floor patient tower has remained half-empty since 2010, and when the estimated $530 million project to fully occupy the tower is added to the initial cost of constructing Pavilion A, the total price tag will top $1 billion over 20 years, reports Blackford.

The overall construction and expansion is expected to support patient care for the next 100 years, says a recent UK press release. Once it's fully occupied, the the 1.2 million-square-foot facility will include 512 private patient rooms.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/06/10/2673382/uk-healthcare-using-30-million.html#storylink=cp

Princess Health and Religious business owners and corporations have filed half the lawsuits over health reform mandate to cover contraception.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Religious business owners and corporations have filed half the lawsuits over health reform mandate to cover contraception.Princessiccia

abortion Affordable Care Act birth control church and state contraception health care reform Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act religion

Gusty 15:57 Add Comment

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

Some religious business owners are filing suit against the government, saying the health-reform law violates the constitutional freedom of religion by mandating employee contraceptive and abortion-inducing drug coverage; the lawsuits are expected to land in the U.S. Supreme Court, and a case filed by Hobby Lobby is the first of this kind to be heard by a federal appeals court.

Challenges to the mandate that will require businesses with more than 50 employees to provide no-cost coverage of all contraceptives, sterilization procedures, plus education and counseling, are not just coming from Catholic entities with a religious, moral objection to contraception. About half of the cases have been filed by corporations, reports Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.

There are now 60 cases involving 190 individuals representing hospitals, universities, businesses, schools and people opposed to the mandate, says the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund maps the cases, as shown below; for the interactive version, click here.

Since the law mandates contraceptive coverage, groups such as Catholic bishops have accused the Obama administration of waging war on religious liberty, reports Barnes. In February, the administration announced an exemption for faith-based organizations from covering employees' contraception costs because the conceptions would be covered by a third party. Self-insured organizations like Catholic schools sued, arguing that the accommodation would not apply to them because there is no third-party insurer to cover contraception. But those cases have been dismissed in court because such organizations are given a one-year grace period to comply with the mandate, reports Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post.

Businesses don't qualify for faith-based exemption from mandates

Hobby Lobby's David and Barbara Green

Business do not meet the new exemption either, because they are not religious organizations. However, some businesses like Hobby Lobby, which was founded and is still owned by an evangelical Christian family that believes life begins at conception and already covers contraceptives through existing employee health coverage, are fighting the law's mandate to cover abortion-inducing drugs or devices, like morning-after and week-after pills.

"They ought to be able � just like a church, just like a charity � to have the right to opt out of a provision that infringes on their religious beliefs," said Kyle Duncan, who argued the case Thursday before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Green family, and a sister company, Christian booksellers Mardel Inc, reports The Associated Press.

Other suits have been filed by religious business owners of diverse enterprises, from a company that makes wooden cabinets to owners of Panera Bread restaurants, reports Barnes, but all the cases base their arguments on the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion and on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Hobby Lobby case also specifies that the mandate violates freedom of speech and the Administrative Procedure Act because it was imposed without prior notice or sufficient time for public comment.

In the early stages of litigation, lower courts have split on the issue. Some have rejected Hobby Lobby's request for an exemption to the mandate, and requests by other businesses for a temporary injunction, saying for-profit businesses aren't covered by the faith-based exemption. However, courts in St. Louis and the Seventh Circuit have granted temporary injunctions. (Read more)

Princess Health and Health insurers could exclude one in four Americans from coverage because they don't have bank accounts .Princessiccia

Princess Health and Health insurers could exclude one in four Americans from coverage because they don't have bank accounts .Princessiccia

Affordable Care Act health care health care access health care reform Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rural-urban disparities

Gusty 09:31 Add Comment

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. graphic

A new study says if corrective action isn't taken, health-insurance companies could exclude 27 percent of qualifying Americans now eligible for premium-assistance tax credits under the health-reform law because they plan to require customers to pay premiums automatically through a bank account. More than 1 in 4 of these people do not have a bank account.

If insurance companies won't do business with them, that will undermine efforts to expand health coverage and equalize access to health care, denying coverage to the more than 8 million "unbanked" Americans, says the report from tax firm Jackson Hewitt.

Unbanked households are those that lack any kind of deposit account, checking or savings, at an insured depository institution, so requiring a checking account for coverage could also worsen the existing disparities in both health-care access and health status of minority groups. African Americans and Hispanics are over 40 percent more likely than whites to be "unbanked," says the report.

Most health plans accept a credit card for the first month�s premium payment and thereafter require monthly payment from a checking account. An estimated 30 percent of U.S. households are "unbanked" or underbanked, with the highest rates among non-Asian minorities and lower-income, younger and unemployed households; underbanked households hold a bank account but also rely on alternative financial services, and one in five households use such check-cashing stores and money lenders instead of a traditional bank, says the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

This all goes against the basic ideals behind the health care law's "comprehensive reforms that improve access to affordable health coverage for everyone and protect consumers from abusive insurance company practices. The law allows all Americans to make health insurance choices that work for them while guaranteeing access to care for our most vulnerable, and provides new ways to bring down costs and improve quality of care," says the White House website.

Law doesn't protect Americans from discrimination

Federal officials are wary taking action that may discourage insurance companies from participating in the exchanges, current and former state health officers who have pressed the U.S Department of Health and Human Services for a ruling told Varney.

�I think there is a dawning awareness that this is a large problem,� Brian Haile told Varney; Haile is senior vice president for health policy at Jackson Hewitt Tax Service and has called on federal official to set a uniform standard requiring all insurers to accept all forms of payment.

Neither the health law nor other laws require insurance companies to accept all forms of payment, says Sarah Varney of Kaiser Health News. Alternative forms of payment include credit cards or pre-paid debit cards that people without bank accounts often use, and although health insurance companies are evaluating these options, they are not required to do so, reports Varney.

�I�ve not seen any specific guidance that says you have to be able to accept these types of payments,� Ray Smithberger, Cigna�s general manager of individual and family plans, told Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post.

Insurance carriers take a risk by accepting credit cards and pre-paid debit cards because transaction fees can run as high as 4 percent and pre-paid cards are popular among low-wage workers, Haile told Varney. 

�If you accept re-loadable debit cards, are you in fact getting folks with lower health status?� Haile told Varney. �That�s a real risk when you�re in the insurance business. So you can�t be the only one picking up those risks.�

The Jackson Hewitt report calls for immediate action by federal policy makers to ensure insurers cannot discriminate against the 'unbanked' through their payment acceptance policies by creating a system-wide rule requiring all forms of payment must be accepted.

"Given the dilemma presented to insurance companies by the strong financial incentives to discourage non-bank payment mechanisms, insurers are unlikely to resolve this issue without federal action," says the report.

Princess Health and Baucus sees a health-reform 'train wreck,' fearing insurance exchanges won't be ready.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Baucus sees a health-reform 'train wreck,' fearing insurance exchanges won't be ready.Princessiccia

federal government health care reform health insurance insurance insurance exchange Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act state governments

Gusty 12:59 Add Comment

Max Baucus (J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Senator Max Baucus, who as Senate Finance Committee chair helped write the health-care reform law, has become the highest-ranking Democrat to publicly voice concerns about its implementation, saying he thinks it�s headed for a collision with itself.

�I just see a huge train wreck coming down,� the Montanan told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius during a budget hearing.

Matt Gouras of The Associated Press notes that polls show that Americans are confused by the complex law, which is designed to cover about 30 million uninsured people through a mix of government programs and tax credits. Baucus told Sibelius he�s �very concerned� that new health insurance exchanges will not open on time in every state and residents will not have enough information to make choices even if they do open on time, as Kentucky's seems likely to do.

"The administration�s public-information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade,� Baucus lectured. �You need to fix this.� Baucus� office later told Gouras that the senator still thinks the Affordable Care Act is a good law, but questions its roll-out.

Sebelius said that the administration is on track to fully implement exchanges in January, and to be open for open enrollment on Oct. 1, 2013, reports Gouras. Kentucky is among the states that have chosen to build a fully state-based exchange. Others have chosen a state-federal partnership exchange, or defaulted into a federally facilitated exchange. The map below shows the lay of the land about that decision. Yellow states have defaulted to a federal exchange, light blue states are planning for a partnership and blue states have chosen a state-based exchange.

Map provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation

Princess Health and Confused or concerned about the impact of health reform on Kentucky businesses? There's a seminar for that..Princessiccia

Princess Health and Confused or concerned about the impact of health reform on Kentucky businesses? There's a seminar for that..Princessiccia

health care health care access health care costs health care law health care reform health reform insurance insurance exchange

Gusty 11:13 Add Comment

To address possible confusion or concern of business people and the public about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," health-care reform experts will address its impact on small and large companies across Kentucky at half-day seminars in Lexington and Louisville on May 8 and 9.

The Kentucky Health Care Reform Seminar will include specific discussions about expected cost increases and tax implications for businesses once reform is implemented, including the role of the health insurance exchange and the changing ways that coverage premiums will be determined. The seminar will be presented by The Iasis Group Inc., The Lane Report and the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, says a chamber release.  

Guidance to employers will be provided on complying with the new rules surrounding insurance reforms and insight to whether Kentucky companies can truly afford it. The seminar is part of a statewide partnership that includes Commerce Lexington, Greater Louisville Inc., the Kentucky Society for Human Resource Management and the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce (Click here for more details or to advance register)

Princess Health and Feds letting Arkansas privatize Medicaid expansion; idea could spread like wildfire, as in Florida, but cost questions remain.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Feds letting Arkansas privatize Medicaid expansion; idea could spread like wildfire, as in Florida, but cost questions remain.Princessiccia

Affordable Care Act health care costs health care reform health insurance health policy insurance Medicaid Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act politics state governments

Gusty 18:58 Add Comment

Arkansas has turned heads nationally with its preliminary plan to expand Medicaid using the private insurance market, showing that the Obama administration is willing to give states more flexibility than expected in expanding the program.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has agreed to a proposal by Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe to reject the Medicaid expansion but use federal money to buy private health insurance for the 200,000 people who would have been covered under ordinary expansion, reports Sandhya Somashekhar of The Washington Post.

States that have come down on either sides of the Medicaid-expansion issue may reconsider their decision in light of the Arkansas proposal, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law professor at George Washington University. "If Arkansas is allowed to do this, I expect it to spread like wildfire," Rosenbaum told the Post.

The first place could be Florida, where a state Senate committee rejected Republican Gov. Rick Scott's expansion plan and proposed a privatization plan like that in Arkansas. Last week, a House committee voted to reject any expansion of the program. Scott "made it clear he was not going to lobby the Legislature on Medicaid," preferring to emphasize other issues, The New York Times' Lizette Alvarez reports. For coverage from the Tampa Bay Times and The Miami Herald, click here.

Could the wildfire spread all the way up to Kentucky?

Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand Medicaid in Kentucky if the state can afford it, but many Republican lawmakers oppose the idea, saying it would not be fiscally responsible. On the national level, 26 states and the District of Columbia have expressed a desire to expand Medicaid, 17 have said they reject it and seven are undecided, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

A more flexibile arrangement could be a game changer because it makes expansion more appealing, especially for states where expanding Medicaid has been politically unpopular and polarizing. in Arkansas, which has a Democratic governor and a Republicna legislature, officials say that from an ideological standpoint, using private insurance appeals to lawmakers from both parties, reports Somashekhar. She reports that even Democratic-led states might prefer this arrangement because it gets rid of some bureaucratic hurdles.

However, there are questions about cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that private insurance plans cost $3,000 more per person than Medicaid, reports Somashekhar. On the other hand, Arkansas officials say the move could ultimately save money in administrative charges along with other cost-control measures.

Although the Arkansas proposal is not concrete, it provides proof that the Department for Health and Human Services encourages innovative, state-based approaches to promote expansion. Many states may develop a new route best suited to their specific needs, without having to leave federal money on the table. (Read more)

Princess Health and Beshear will expand Medicaid, Democrat and Republican say; D says governor believes the state can opt out if it's not affordable.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Beshear will expand Medicaid, Democrat and Republican say; D says governor believes the state can opt out if it's not affordable.Princessiccia

Affordable Care Act General Assembly health care access health care reform health insurance legislature Medicaid Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act politics state government

Gusty 08:46 Add Comment

State legislators in both parties say they expect Gov. Steve Beshear to expand Medicaid to cover several hundred thousand more Kentuckians who earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty rate.

Rep. Tom Burch, chairman of the House Health and Welfare Committee, told Ryan Alessi of cn|2�s "Pure Politics" that the governor told him exactly that last week. And Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, told Kentucky Health News that he expects Beshear to do the deed.

Burch told Alessi that Beshear has decided to move forward with the expansion because he believes the state would be able to opt out if state officials discover that Kentucky can�t afford it after 2017.

Beshear didn�t mention expansion in his State of the Commonwealth Address last week, and the governor�s office said the official decision hadn�t been made yet but didn�t dispute Burch�s statement, Alessi reports. Here is the salient part of his interview with Burch:



Buford said Beshear will be under much political pressure to expand Medicaid because it is President Obama's signature program and expansion will create jobs. However, Republican legislators generally  have opposed the expansion of Medicaid because the state can�t afford it. The federal government will cover the cost of covering the extra people from 2014 through 2016. Kentucky would have to kick in 5 percent of the costs starting in 2017 and 10 percent by 2020.  

The federal government covers roughly 70 percent of Kentucky�s $6 billion Medicaid program. It covers more than 800,000 Kentuckians and with the expansion, that number could grow to more than 1 million � or roughly a quarter of all Kentuckians, reports Alessi.

�I think it�s critical that we take a look at those to see how we achieve that. I�m not sure that this would be the way that would be best-suited to Kentucky and be fiscally responsible for the state of Kentucky,� Sen. Julie Denton, R-Louisville and chairman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, told Alessi in December (at 4:10 of the interview below). �Frankly, I don�t think we can afford to do it,� she said.

Princess Health and Kasich of Ohio is fifth Republican governor to accept Medicaid expansion; he and others cite need to protect rural hospitals, poor.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Kasich of Ohio is fifth Republican governor to accept Medicaid expansion; he and others cite need to protect rural hospitals, poor.Princessiccia

Affordable Care Act health care access health care costs health care reform health insurance health reform insurance Medicaid Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act poverty state governments

Gusty 14:39 Add Comment

Several Republican governors have decided to expand Medicaid under federal health-care reform, saying their conservative principles were outweighed by a need to protect their state's rural hospitals and low-income people. Yesterday, the governor of one of the biggest states got on the bandwagon.

John Kasich of Ohio joined Jan Brewer of Arizona, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota in saying they will take heavy federal subsidies to expand the program to households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold.

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky has said he wants to expand Medicaid if Kentucky can afford it, and he expects to get cost estimates around the end of March.

While Kasich is not an "Obamacare" supporter, he said expanding Medicaid �makes great sense for Ohio� because it would save $235 million over the next two years and free about $100 million in local funds for mental-health and addiction services, reports The Columbus Dispatch.

Kasich said the decision could extend health coverage to as many as 578,000 uninsured Ohio residents, and could keep everyone else�s health insurance premiums down because there won�t be so many uninsured people going to emergency rooms for their medical care, reports David Nather of Politico.

Kasich emphasized that he would like to see the 2010 law repealed, but the federal money it would pump into the state � about $13 billion over the next seven years � was too much to pass up, reports Stateline. The federal government will pay the full cost of expansion through 2016; then  states will have to pitch in, rising to a limit of 10 percent by 2020.

Brewer likewise said it doesn't make sense for Arizona to pass up federal dollars, reports Howard Fischer of the Arizona Daily Sun. "We will protect rural and safety-net hospitals from being pushed to the brink by growing their cost in caring for the uninsured," Brewer said. She also said the expansion will create enormous economic benefit, inject $2 billion into the Arizona economy, save and create thousands of jobs and provide health care to hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals, reports Fischer.

Brewer said going along with expansion will save Arizona money because the costs of providing care to the uninsured are not simply absorbed by hospitals but passed along through increased insurance premiums. Supporters of the expansion hope the five Republicans' decisions will prompt more GOP governors to follow suit. Twenty governors from both political parties are still undecided. (Read more)

Princess Health and Health reform will let insurers charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premiums, which is likely to have a big impact in Kentucky.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Health reform will let insurers charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premiums, which is likely to have a big impact in Kentucky.Princessiccia

Affordable Care Act health care reform health insurance health reform insurance exchange Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act smoking tobacco tobacco prevention

Gusty 14:36 Add Comment

"Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance" because the health-care reform law will let health-insurance companies charge smokers as much as 50 percent more starting next year on individual policies, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation," The Associated Press reports.

The provision is likely to have a major impact in Kentucky, where 29 percent of adults are smokers, a figure exceeded by no other state, and where 25 to 30 percent of people under 65 are estimated to have no health insurance.

"For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year" AP reports. "A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums. Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration."

A state health insurance exchange, now being created under the law, will be a place to buy insurance with tax credits depending on income. Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand the state Medicaid program to cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, but many Republicans in the legislature are opposed to that because the state would ultimately have to pay 10 percent of the expansion's cost.

The provisions to discourage smoking would allow employees covered by employer plans to avoid penalties by joining smoking-cessation programs,"but experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually," AP reports.

There is concern about the provision's effect on older smokers who "could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge. . . . Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options," AP reports, citing Karen Pollitz, a health-insurance expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation and former deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pollitz notes that the reform law lets insurers charge older customers up to three times as much as their youngest customers; charge the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones; and does not allow smokers to use tax credits to offset the cost of the penalty.

And there's a good argument to charge the full penalty, insurance consultant Robert Laszewski told AP: "If you don�t charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers,� said Laszewski. �They are going to have to play defense." (Read more)

Princess Health and Health departments prepare for challenges posed by health-care reform law.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Health departments prepare for challenges posed by health-care reform law.Princessiccia

Affordable Care Act county health departments grants health care law health care reform health departments health insurance

Gusty 07:14 Add Comment

No one really has a clue what changes from the health-care reform law will mean to Kentuckians and public health departments are preparing for the uncertainty, reports Kristy Cox of Business Lexington.

"The Affordable Care Act will have an impact on health departments.  It is going to put a whole lot more people out there on the street on health insurance" of one kind or another, Dr. Rice Leach, head of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department, told Cox.

"I think how health departments are impacted is going to look a little different depending on what part of the state they're in," Rice said. "The United States has passed a law that creates an entitlement for 30 or 40 million people, and here in Lexington, for 10,000 or 20,000 more people to have health insurance. Now, who is going to take care of them?"

If the private sector can't handle the increased patient load, Leach said, the stress goes onto the health departments, meaning they may be expected to provide a broad "continuum" of care for acute medical needs, including doctors and laboratory services. Leach said he hopes other systems will step up to provide care so health departments can continue to focus on preventative services.

Many factors determine what health departments can and can't do as well as their ability to generate dollars. Leach called  the services mandates by state and federal governments as "mission critical activities," which include preventive health, communicable disease control, public health education, emergency response, sanitary code and restaurant inspection and public health policy, writes Cox. 

Despite the challenging economic environment created by budget cuts and managed-care non-payment issues, Kentucky health departments are trying to stay focused on their big-picture mission.  Some departments are writing grants and others, like the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, has sent nurses into school systems in attempt to increase revenue through expanded clinical services, Cox reports.

Princess Health and Poll shows registered voters in Ky. favor expanding Medicaid.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Poll shows registered voters in Ky. favor expanding Medicaid.Princessiccia

Affordable Care Act health care reform health insurance Medicaid poll state government

Gusty 15:12 Add Comment

By Molly Burchett and Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

A statewide poll last month found that most registered voters in Kentucky, when presented with specific facts and options, generally favored expansion of Medicaid under federal health-care reform. Similar results were found in six other states surveyed by a bipartisan pair of pollsters working for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

"Respondents in the seven states polled were informed that federal funds are available to pay 100 percent of the costs to cover more uninsured people through Medicaid beginning in 2014, with the federal share gradually decreasing to 90 percent," the network said in a news release. "Respondents in each state were two to three times more likely to support accepting federal dollars to cover more people than they were to prefer turning down federal funds and leaving vulnerable populations uninsured." The poll asked:

Next I�d like to ask you about an issue being talked about by the governor and the state legislature. Under the new federal health care law, [number of] people in [state] who are uninsured right now could get health care coverage through Medicaid starting in 2014. The governor and state elected officials can choose to accept federal dollars that have been allocated to cover these people in [state], or to turn the money down and not cover these people. The federal dollars cover 100% of the costs in the first few years, and 90% of the costs after that.

The release said the result in Kentucky was 63 percent for expansion and 23 percent opposed. The results were not quite as strong, 60-30, when voters were presented with arguments from both sides of the debate:

Side A says we can cover more people in [state] and save taxpayer dollars that are currently spent on treating uninsured people in emergency rooms. Covering more people gives hard-working families the security of knowing they can get preventive care and see a doctor when they need to. The alternative is people showing up in the emergency room when they are sicker. By accepting the money, we could cover more people and save taxpayer dollars.

Side B says Kentucky will eventually have to pay 10% of the costs of covering these people, and even more if the federal government fails to follow through on its promises. We cannot afford to spend even more on health care coverage, which is already a big part of the state budget. We have too many other priorities in the state that need attention, like education and roads. By turning down the money, we could avoid future increases in state health care spending.

Which side do you agree with more?

The results in other states were Florida, 62-28; Iowa, 55-34; Michigan, 62-29; New Jersey, 65-29; New Mexico, 61-29; and Texas, 55-35. The Kentucky poll found that 49 percent of registered voters in Kentucky have close friends or family members who are uninsured, and 43 percent of voters who are not currently receiving coverage through Medicaid say they or someone close to them has been covered by it.

The poll did not mention the key standard for expansion, that a state must cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Kentucky now covers people with incomes below approximately 70 percent of poverty, and the federal government pays a little more than 70 percent of the cost. It would pay all the cost of expansion in 2014-16, then the state would have to start paying an increasing share, reaching 10 percent by 2020. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand Medicaid if the state can afford it.

The telephone poll surveyed 812 registered voters, giving it an error margin of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points. It was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic firm, and GS Strategy Group, a Republican firm, between Dec. 13 and 22. For more details, click here.

Princess Health and A summary of what to expect when the Supreme Court hears arguments about the health-care reform law.Princessiccia

Princess Health and A summary of what to expect when the Supreme Court hears arguments about the health-care reform law.Princessiccia

health care reform Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act U.S. Supreme Court

Gusty 18:23 Add Comment

How big a deal will it be when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments about the constitutionality of the new federal health-care reform law later this month? Big, concludes Stuart Taylor Jr. for Kaiser Health News.

"It's big enough for the justices to schedule six hours of arguments � more time than given to any case since 1966," he reports. "It's also big enough to attract more briefs than any other case in history ... and, finally, it's big enough to cause the justices to postpone until October half of the 12 cases that they were ordinarily going to hear in April in order to clear time to get started on the health care opinions."

The most pressing issues deal with the individual mandate of the law, which requires people without insurance to buy some or pay fines. The question is whether the mandate "represents an unconstitutional exercise on Congress' power to regulate commerce and to levy taxes," Taylor notes. There is also the question of state sovereignty, since the law requires states "to spend more of their own money or forfeit all of the federal Medicaid money they now receive," Taylor reports.

As for the outcome, that's the million-dollar question, Taylor writes. "It's clear that the court's four more liberal members, like almost all other liberal legal experts, will find the law constitutional in all respects. It's also clear that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas will vote to strike down much or all of the law. It's less clear what swing-voting Justice Anthony Kennedy and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito will do."

As for the major arguments regarding Medicaid and for and against the individual mandate, Taylor provides an excellent summary that is worth reading in its entirety. (Read more)

Princess Health and What health reform changes to expect in 2012 � assuming the Supreme Court doesn't strike down the entire law.Princessiccia

Princess Health and What health reform changes to expect in 2012 � assuming the Supreme Court doesn't strike down the entire law.Princessiccia

accountable care organizations health care law health care reform Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Gusty 22:10 Add Comment

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments later this month about the federal health care-reform law, and is expected to decide the law's future this summer. While the court mulls the constitutionality of an individual mandate to buy health insurance, "implementation marches on, and a number of notable changes will take effect for consumers this year," writes Michelle Andrews for Kaiser Health News.

If the high court strikes down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, "all bets are off," Andrews writes. Popular provisions, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26 and the 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs for seniors under the prescription drug doughnut hole, could be eliminated � and provisions set to take effect this year could be cancelled. But, if the Supreme Court does not invalidate the entire law, here's a list of new provisions consumers can expect this year:

Free contraception coverage: "Women in a new health plan or in an existing one that has changed its benefits enough to not be considered grandfathered under the law will be able to receive contraceptives without an out-of-pocket charge," Andrews writes. Insurance plans will also have to provide basic health services for women, including screening for gestational diabetes; HPV testing; STD counseling; screening and testing for HIV; and screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence. Religious employers such as churches are exempt from the new regulation, but colleges, hospitals and other employers that are religiously affiliated are not � though they do have a one-year grace period to implement it. Employees of those institutions will receive their free benefit from their employer's insurance.

Consumer rebates: Under the law, insurance companies have to spend at least 80 to 85 of their premium revenues on medical claims and quality improvement. If they don't, they have to pay the difference to policyholders, which, in most plans, means the employer. If the provision had been in place in 2010, an analysis by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners estimated that would have meant $2 billion going to consumers. In December, the Obama administration said that about 9 million Americans could receive rebates that added up to $1.4 billion.

Clearer descriptions: Starting in September, all health plans will have to give consumers benefits information that is easy to understand. "Every plan will be required to give people a short summary of coverage and a uniform glossary of terms," Andrews reports. "It will also have to provide examples of how much the plan would cover if someone had a baby or was managing Type 2 diabetes � two common situations that should make it easier for people to compare plans."

Smaller doughnut hole: "This is the break in Medicare prescription drug benefits that, in a standard plan, begins after total drug spending by the beneficiary and the health plan exceeds $2,930 and continues until the beneficiary has hit the $4,700 out-of-pocket limit," Andrews reports. Last year, people on Medicare with high drug costs got a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs once they reached the doughnut hole. This year, they'll also get a 14 percent discount on generic drugs. (Read more)