July 30th, 2014
Editor’s note: Otis Brawley also coauthored this post. This post is part of a periodic Health Affairs Blog series on palliative care, health policy, and health reform. The series features essays adapted from and drawing on an upcoming volume, Meeting the Needs of Older Adults with Serious Illness: Challenges and Opportunities in the Age of Health Care Reform, in which clinicians, researchers and policy leaders address 16 key areas where real-world policy options to improve access to quality palliative care could have a substantial role in improving value.
Racial and ethnic disparities in health care have been well documented among minority groups with respect to access to care, receipt of care, and quality of care. As a result of these disparities, minority populations are often diagnosed with late stage illness and have inferior outcomes likely leading to increased suffering.
Little is known, however, about disparities in access to and use of specialty palliative care. Palliative care is medical care aimed at relieving suffering and providing the best possible quality of life for people facing pain, symptoms, and stresses from serious illness. Palliative care is appropriate for patients at any age or illness stage and can be provided along with curative or life-prolonging therapies. Read the rest of this entry »
July 30th, 2014
Another Affordable Care Act challenge bit the dust on July 29, 2014, when the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision that dismissed Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services. Sissel had sued claiming first that the individual mandate “is not a regulation of commerce, but purports to compel affected Americans like [himself], to engage in commerce,” and second that the “shared responsibility payment” is a tax and violates the Origination Clause because it “originated in the Senate, not the House.”
The court had little trouble disposing of Sissel’s first claim, which, the court explained, was based on a misreading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in the NFIB case. Although five justices of the NFIB Court concluded that Congress lacked the authority to enact the individual mandate as a command under the Commerce Clause, a majority of the Court also concluded that the mandate did not in fact order individuals to purchase insurance, but rather imposed a tax on those who failed to do so. The requirement was thus, as the Supreme Court had already held, constitutional.
Sissel’s second claim was based on article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, the Origination Clause, an obscure provision few Americans remember from fifth grade civics. It provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as to other bills.” Sissel argued that the individual mandate of the ACA was a bill to raise revenue but that the ACA in fact originated in the Senate, and thus the provision was unconstitutional. Read the rest of this entry »
July 29th, 2014
Editor’s note: In addition to Sharon Long, this post is coauthored by Genevieve Kenney, Stephen Zuckerman, and Katherine Hempstead.
Since early last year, the Urban Institute’s Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS) has been collecting relevant, timely data that is providing insights on the implementation of the ACA and changes in health insurance coverage and related outcomes. (An article describing the survey was published in Health Affairs last December.)
Beginning in late 2013, the HRMS set the stage by exploring adults’ understanding of key ACA provisions, their level of health insurance literacy, and expectations about coverage changes in 2014 based on information collected just before the beginning of the first open enrollment period. More recently, the HRMS has shed light on the characteristics of the newly insured, identified who’s not shopping for insurance, and explained how some states’ decisions to expand Medicaid has reduced uninsurance rates.
The HRMS and other surveys have confirmed that the number of uninsured adults has declined significantly since the first open enrollment under the ACA started. On Tuesday July 29, Health Affairs Editor-in-Chief Alan Weil moderated a panel discussion on what the HRMS shows about the ACA’s performance thus far and what it implies for next year’s open enrollment period. (A recording will be available for those who couldn’t join live.) At the event, we released three new policy briefs that, respectively, provide the latest detailed coverage estimates, describe the remaining uninsured, and explore how consumers are navigating the ACA’s Marketplaces.
Here’s a sample of what we’ve learned from this latest release of HRMS data and what was covered at today’s event: Read the rest of this entry »
July 28th, 2014
Editor’s note: Debra Barksdale and Kitty Werner also coauthored this post.
With the full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been major concerns about the looming primary care provider shortage. The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis predicts shortages as high as 20,400 physicians by 2020, and increases in medical school graduates entering primary care residencies have been anemic.
Physician shortages can be addressed by the rapid growth of nurse practitioners (NPs), trained in primary care, along with the redesign of primary care to include teams that can be led by both physicians and NPs. But our nation’s primary care needs can only be met if states allow NPs to practice to the fullest extent of their training without unnecessary requirements for physician supervision. Read the rest of this entry »
July 28th, 2014
Editor’s note: This post was updated on July 28, 2014 to conclude with a discussion of a rule expanding coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program.
One question that has arisen in the wake of the Halbig/King decisions is what exactly is a state exchange? The D.C. Circuit in Halbig and the Fourth Circuit in King seemed unclear as to the answer to this question. The D.C. Circuit counted 14 state exchanges, the Fourth Circuit 16.
A great deal, however, may turn on the answer. Two of the eight federal judges that have ruled on the question so far have held that only state exchanges and not federally facilitated exchanges can issue premium tax credits. Were this conclusion to be adopted in the end by the Supreme Court, which exchanges would count? In other words, how exactly does a state establish an exchange?
A careful reading of the law suggests that a state “establishes” an exchange when, exercising the legal powers of the executive or legislative branch, the state government takes certain actions, discussed below. Establishing the exchange – that is, using the power of state government to enable the exchange to operate and fulfill its responsibilities – is different from the carrying out the day-to-day operations, of the exchange, which might be carried out by public officials, private contractors, or even the federal government. Read the rest of this entry »
July 28th, 2014
Reading Janice Lynch Schuster’s tormented account of her persistent pain and her journey through the medical maze of care in the July issue of Health Affairs, I’m reminded of how millions of Americans are living with not one, but two, pain challenges. The first is the epidemic of over-prescription; the second is the condition of endemic under-medication.
In her essay “Down The Rabbit Hole: A Chronic Pain Sufferer Navigates The Maze Of Opioid Use,” Schuster herself hints at the dual issues when she writes: “pain patients like me often feel trapped between the clinical need to treat and manage pain and the social imperative to restrict access to such drugs and promote public safety.”
People coping with chronic pain confront a double-faced problem: a society simultaneously providing too much relief and too little. Which face of the American pain dilemma any patient will experience depends on where they live, who they are, and what kind of practitioner they encounter in their pursuit of relief. As Schuster writes, the situation is perplexing, maddening, and sometimes arbitrary. Read the rest of this entry »
July 25th, 2014
Although the focus of activity the week of July 21 was in the courts, the agencies were not totally silent. On July 24, 2014 the Internal Revenue Service released final and temporary and proposed regulations addressing issues that are presented by the premium tax credit program. The IRS also released drafts of the forms that individuals, insurers, and employers will use for reporting information to the IRS necessary for reconciliation of premium tax credits and for the enforcement of the individual and employer mandate programs. Finally, the IRS set the maximum individual mandate penalty for individuals whose income is high enough that they pay the penalty as a percentage of income rather than a flat dollar amount. This amount is established by the statute as the average cost of a bronze level plan for the applicable family size for 2014 and was set by the IRS at $2,448 per individual annually, up to $12,240 for families of five or more.
The draft forms operationalize the reporting requirements established by rules published earlier. Insurers and self-insured health plans will provide a Form 1095-B to each of their enrollees and members, and file these forms, together with a transmittal form 1094-B with the IRS. Large employers must provide a form 1095-C to each employee, and transmit these, together with a transmittal form 1095-B to the IRS. Exchanges will provide their enrollees a form 1095-A. Individuals who receive premium tax credits will file a form 8962 with the IRS, while individuals claiming an exemption from the individual mandate will file a form 8965. Though the forms are not accompanied by instructions, they are quite straightforward and track closely the earlier released rules.
The final and temporary rules address several situations that will arise under the premium tax credit program that have not yet been addressed by the premium tax credit rules. The temporary rules are identical to the proposed rules and will cease to apply once the proposed rules are finalized. Read the rest of this entry »
July 24th, 2014
New financial incentives and penalties in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) designed to optimize health care system performance are proving difficult to manage, but they are also providing new opportunities for leaders to foster collaboration between acute and post-acute health care providers.
Perhaps one of the most promising, albeit controversial, programs has been Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), which penalizes hospitals with excess 30-day readmissions for health conditions such as pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Although not all hospital readmissions are preventable, many could be avoided with improved post-discharge planning and care coordination.
The HHRP was designed to penalize hospitals with excess 30-day readmissions regardless of whether the patient was readmitted to the same hospital or another hospital. Although there are some exceptions (for example, readmissions due to hospital transfers or planned readmissions), most readmissions of patients with health conditions targeted by the HHRP will count against a hospital. Read the rest of this entry »
July 24th, 2014
Editor’s note: In addition to Susan Edgman-Levitan, this post is also coauthored by Tejal Gandhi.
Recently, the National Patient Safety Foundation’s Lucian Leape Institute brought together 40 patient safety experts — health professionals, patients, advocates, and others — to develop recommendations for how best to engage patients and families in improving patient safety. They represented patient advocacy organizations, health systems, professional societies, researchers, and international safety organizations.
During the course of two lengthy roundtable discussions, participants were asked to reflect on an experience in which they or someone close to them had experienced harm at the hands of the health care system and how they responded. Among the stories we heard: Read the rest of this entry »
July 23rd, 2014
The Halbig and King cases released on July 22, 2014 dramatically overshadowed another court decision released the previous day. That case, Johnson v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, was important in its own right, however, and is covered here.
On July 21, 2014, Judge William C. Griesbach of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed a case brought by Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson and one of his staff members. The plaintiffs claimed that the rule promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management that allows members of Congress and their official staff to purchase health insurance through the exchanges with federal subsidies violates the Affordable Care Act and is unconstitutional. Judge Griesbach held that the plaintiffs had not been injured by the rule and thus had no standing to challenge it. This decision not only disposes of one more ACA challenge, it also calls further into question Congressman John Boehner’s proposed lawsuit challenging other ACA implementation decisions.
The ACA provides that “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff” are qualified health plans and plans sold through the exchange. This provision was adopted as an amendment offered by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), apparently to challenge the Democrats’ willingness to participate in the same program they were creating for other Americans. This challenge was embraced by the Democrats, however, resulting in the current law. Read the rest of this entry »