Health Care Reform Implementation Update - December 4, 2012

HHS is quickly moving to implement the Affordable Care Act.  Rules are out in the past two weeks that charge insurance companies to participate in federal exchanges, prohibit discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, detail essential health benefit requirements, and expand employment-based wellness programs.  In addition, in response to Liberty University’s request, the Supreme Court ordered the 4th Circuit to examine the constitutionality of ACA’s employer requirements.


AT THE AGENCIES

On Friday (11/30), HHS issued new rules that charge insurance companies monthly fees to sell plans through federally run insurance exchanges.  These fees will be pegged to the number of customers each insurer has in the exchange.

On Tuesday (11/20), HHS released three proposed rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.  Comments may be submitted during the 90-day comment period.  One of the rules details ACA’s guaranteed issue and community rating requirements.  The rule would prohibit health insurance companies from discriminating against individuals because of pre-existing or chronic conditions, gender or occupation starting in 2014.  Under the rule, the only factors by which insurers can underwrite are family size, geography and whether or not the individual smokes.  In addition, insurers may not charge seniors more than three times what they charge young people – currently, insurers in 42 states charge seniors five or more times what they charge young adults.

Another of the proposed rules outlines coverage of essential health benefits, which are the minimum package of benefits the Affordable Care Act says must be included in health insurance plans.  The categories of benefits that must be included are inpatient and outpatient care, emergency services, maternity and childhood care, prescription drugs, preventive screenings and lab work, mental health and substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation for physical and cognitive disorders, and dental and vision care for children.  Much of this information was already known.  One surprise, however, is that health insurance plans will have to cover the same number of prescription drugs as the benchmark plan in their states, which means there will be a greater number of prescription drugs covered in each class of drugs.

Finally, HHS also released a proposed rule that implements and expands employment-based wellness programs to promote health and help control health care spending.  Under the regulation, employers may reward employees for annual exams or regular workouts, but they may not punish people who do not engage in these activities.


IN THE STATES

According to a report released Monday (11/26) by the Kaiser Family Foundation, states that expand their Medicaid rolls would see only modest cost increases compared with the expense to the federal government.  Part of the states' concern over costs, however, is that the federal government could increase the percentage of the bill states have to cover in later years in response to fiscal woes.  The report also says that states would face increased Medicaid costs even if they do not expand their Medicaid programs.

On Friday (11/16), Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal said Georgia would not build a state exchange because it has "no interest in spending … tax dollars on an exchange that is state-based in name only."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Maine Gov. Paul LePage and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer also each sent letters to HHS Sec. Sebelius saying that their states would not set up state-based insurance exchanges.  This means the federal government will set up the exchanges in these states.  Gov. Perry also said he will not expand Medicaid.

On Friday (11/16), Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder announced he is planning to move forward with a partnership exchange, however, he has not foreclosed the option of a state-based exchange if the federal deadline is again moved or the state House votes for the bill.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin announced that Oklahoma would not pursue the creation of a state-based exchange or expand its Medicaid program.

On Monday (11/19), Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said that expanding Medicaid pursuant to the Affordable Care Act would cost the state millions of dollars that it does not have.  The state has not officially made its decision yet, though.  The state is particularly concerned about the “woodwork effect” – even though the federal government will cover the costs associated with newly eligible beneficiaries, many new beneficiaries will also “come out of the woodwork” who were previously eligible.  These individuals would have to be paid for by Pennsylvania since the federal assistance is only for individuals who are newly eligible.  This concern is by no means unique to Pennsylvania.

On Thursday (11/29), Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said that he plans to expand Medicaid in the state.


IN THE COURTS

On Monday (11/26), the Supreme Court ordered the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to examine the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s employer requirements and mandatory coverage of contraceptives without a co-pay.  This was in response to Liberty University’s request that the Supreme Court reopen arguments against the employer mandate and contraceptive coverage mandate.

On Monday (11/19), a federal judge ruled against Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby in its attempt to block enforcement of contraceptive health insurance provisions of the Affordable care Act.  Hobby Lobby’s attorneys said they plan to appeal the ruling to a federal appeals court in Denver.
 

 

Health Care Reform Implementation Update - August 1, 2012

Over the past week, analysts at the Congressional Budget Office said they expect that the Supreme Court’s decision, which struck down the requirement that states expand their Medicaid programs, will result in 3 million more uninsured and reduce costs by $84 billion; and the House Appropriations Committee released its fiscal 2013 budget for HHS, allocating $68.3 billion to the agency and defunding the Affordable Care Act.

AT THE AGENCIES

On Tuesday (7/17), the House Appropriations Committee released a draft of its fiscal 2013 budget for HHS. The draft includes $68.3 billion for HHS, defunds the Affordable Care Act and ends HHS' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as of October 1.

On Thursday (7/26), HHS announced a new plan to crack down on health care fraud. The Department of Health Human Services and The Department of Justice will be partnering with over a dozen health insurers and industry groups to prevent fraudulent health care schemes.

On Thursday (7/19), HHS Secretary Sebelius announced an opportunity to help states design and test improvements to their health care systems. Through the initiative, states will work with a broad coalition of employers, insurers, community leaders, service organizations and health care providers to design or test multi-payer payment and delivery system improvements to health care systems for Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries.

ON THE HILL

On Tuesday (7/24), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that 3 million fewer Americans will gain health insurance through the health reform law because the Supreme Court loosened the law's requirement that states expand Medicaid coverage, and the CBO’s revised budget reflecting the change includes an $84 billion reduction from its March 2012 estimate. The CBO also said that the proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $109 billion between the years of 2013 and 2022.

IN THE STATES

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is pointing to language in the Affordable Care Act that suggests if a state does not set up a state-based insurance exchange, its citizens will not be able to be fined for not participating. The fines in the law, Cuccinelli argues, apply only to failure to participate in a state-based exchange, but not a federally established one.

Alaska Governor Sean Parnell announced on Tuesday (7/17) that Alaska will not set up an insurance exchange program because it is too expensive.

On Wednesday (7/18), Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe said he is still inclined to move forward with an expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, but the matter will be decided by a vote in the Legislature next year.

On Tuesday (7/17), Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear signed an executive order to create the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange, effective January 1, 2014.

THIS WEEK      

On Thursday (8/2) from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at 1333 H St. NW, the Center for American Progress will host a discussion titled, "Cutting Health Care Costs: Leading Experts to Propose Bold Solutions."

On Friday (8/3) from 12:15 to 2:00 p.m. in the Columbus Club at Union Station, the Alliance for Health Reform will hold a briefing titled, "Medicaid Managed Long-Term Services and Supports: Are More Caution and Oversight Needed?" RSVP by noon on August 2.


To view our compilation of recent health care reform implementation news, click here.

Health Care Reform Implementation Update July 3, 2012

The Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in a landmark 5-4 decision, which prompted many in business, the administration and states around the country to proceed with the Act’s implementation, while others are preparing for a major political effort to repeal the law.

IN THE COURTS

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld much of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Thursday (6/28), including the federal mandate to purchase health insurance, but not the power of the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds from states that choose not to participate in the law’s Medicaid expansions.

AT THE AGENCIES

Medicaid expansions planned under the Affordable Care Act now hang in the balance as state officials decide whether to participate in or opt out of the law’s Medicaid provisions. The Supreme Court effectively said states may implement the new Medicaid expansions included within the law and receive the financial benefits that accompany those expansions, or they may maintain their existing Medicaid programs without having to face a withholding of funds for those programs.

IN THE STATES

Texas is weighing whether to participate in or opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid provisions, which, if implemented, would extend coverage to 1.8 million Texans, but also cost the state an estimated $2.6 billion between 2014 and 2019.

Republican governors in numerous states that were party to the case before the Supreme Court vowed to ignore the Court’s ruling at least until after the election.

ON THE HILL

Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are already discussing ways to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including the use of unconventional means such as reconciliation, which might allow portions to be repealed with only 51 votes in the Senate. There will likely be a symbolic vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act on July 11, but a larger campaign to repeal the legislation would, at a minimum, require Republicans to win the White House, gain seats in the Senate, maintain control of the House, and then proceed in near perfect unity on repeal efforts, likely including little-known legislative procedural moves.

To view our compilation of recent health care reform implementation news, click here.

Campaign public finance in 2013? Don't bank on it.

The United States Supreme Court has granted a stay(.pdf) preventing the distribution of public matching funds in the Arizona gubernatorial election, pending their decision to hear an appeal from a 9th Circuit opinion upholding the law. Some commentators think it’s likely that the law will be declared unconstitutional as the appellate court decision was pretty firm and the Court didn't need to intervene -in the middle of the campaign- unless there was support for reversing.

The basis of the appeal is an attack on a section increasing public campaign subsidies when a self-funded candidate exceeds a certain spending threshold. The theory is that the statute has a chilling effect on the political speech of that self-funded candidate who might be afraid to spend money for fear of giving their publicly-funded opponent a boost.

This could very well doom the New York City Campaign Finance Law, or at least the section that bumps up the matching funds provided by the Campaign Finance Board when a non-participating candidate spends above certain levels. If another Mike Bloomberg emerges in 2013, candidates for Mayor may have to cast their nets more widely to be competitive. Of course, the Mayor's $105 million campaign barely held its own against his less well-funded opponent Bill Thompson.

The key New York provisions are after the jump (emphasis added).

§3-706 Expenditures limitations; additional financing and limits.
3.     (a) If any candidate in any covered election chooses not to file a certification as a participating or limited participating candidate pursuant to this chapter, and where the campaign finance board has determined that such candidate and his or her authorized committees have spent or contracted or have obligated to spend, or received in loans or contributions, or both, an amount which, in the aggregate, exceeds half the applicable expenditure limit for such office fixed by subdivision one of this section, then:


(i) such expenditure limit applicable to participating candidates and limited participating candidates in such election for such office shall be increased to one hundred fifty percent of such limit; and

(ii) the principal committees of such participating candidates shall receive payment for qualified campaign expenditures of five dollars for each one dollar of matchable contributions, up to one thousand two hundred fifty dollars in public funds per contributor (or up to six hundred twenty five dollars in public funds per contributor in the case of a special election); provided, however, that (A) participating candidates in a run-off election shall receive public funds for such election pursuant to subdivision five of section 3-705 and shall not receive any additional public funds pursuant to this section, and (B) in no case shall a principal committee receive in public funds an amount exceeding two-thirds of the expenditure limitation provided for such office in subdivision one of this section.

(iii) for elections occurring after January first, two thousand eight, the campaign finance board shall promulgate rules to provide that the principal committees of such participating candidates shall receive payment for qualified campaign expenditures that will provide the highest allowable matchable contribution to be matched by an amount up to one thousand two hundred fifty dollars in public funds per contributor (or up to six hundred twenty five dollars in public funds per contributor in the case of special election); provided, however, that (A) participating candidates in a run-off election shall receive public funds for such election pursuant to subdivision five of section 3-705 and shall not receive any additional public funds pursuant to this section, and (B) in no case shall a principal committee receive in public funds an amount exceeding two-thirds of the expenditure limitation provided for such office in subdivision one of this section.

(b) If any candidate in any covered election chooses not to file a certification as a participating or limited participating candidate pursuant to this chapter, and where the campaign finance board has determined that such candidate and his or her authorized committees have spent or contracted or have obligated to spend, or received in loans or contributions, or both, an amount which, in the aggregate, exceeds three times the applicable expenditure limit for such office fixed by subdivision one of this section, then:


(i) such expenditure limit shall no longer apply to participating candidates and limited participating candidates in such election for such office; and

(ii) the principal committees of such participating candidates shall receive payment for qualified campaign expenditures of six dollars for each one dollar of matchable contributions, up to one thousand five hundred dollars in public funds per contributor (or up to seven hundred fifty dollars in public funds per contributor in the case of a special election); provided, however, that (A) participating candidates in a run-off election shall receive public funds for such election pursuant to subdivision five of section 3-705 and shall not receive any additional public funds pursuant to this section, and (B) in no case shall a principal committee receive in public funds an amount exceeding one hundred twenty-five percent of the expenditure limitation provided for such office in subdivision one of this section.

(iii) for elections occurring after January first, two thousand eight, the campaign finance board shall promulgate rules to provide that the principal committees of such participating candidates shall receive payment for qualified campaign expenditures that will provide the highest allowable matchable contribution to be matched by an amount up to one thousand five hundred dollars in public funds per contributor (or up to seven hundred fifty dollars in public funds per contributor in the case of special election); provided, however, that (A) participating candidates in a run-off election shall receive public funds for such election pursuant to subdivision five of section 3-705 and shall not receive any additional public funds pursuant to this section, and (B) in no case shall a principal committee receive in public funds an amount exceeding one hundred twenty-five percent of the expenditure limitation provided for such office in subdivision one of this section.