Blog Home

Archive for the 'States' Category




State-Based Marketplaces: Leveraging Year-One Lessons To Boost Year-Two Enrollment


August 27th, 2014

In three months, consumers will log onto their state’s health insurance marketplace to investigate their options and enroll in a plan. Already, states are hard at work prepping for the second year of open enrollment, which begins November 15. State marketplaces are expected to increase the number of enrollees this year and adopting lessons from 2013-2014 can help.

A User-Friendly Marketplace

First and foremost, states need a user-friendly marketplace that functions properly and allows consumers, brokers, insurers and navigators to seek and provide information that is timely and credible. States know this, but recently, interviews with 100 staff from five successful state-based marketplaces (SBMs) unearthed several less obvious lessons.

To begin, states should move from last year’s ‘shotgun’ marketing that helped build awareness to a more targeted approach to outreach this year. In addition to some mass marketing to maintain awareness, states should target advertising dollars to high-priority segments and focus on less expensive tools, like direct mailing campaigns and walk-up enrollment centers, which proved to be most effective last year.

Read the rest of this entry »

Arkansas Payment Improvement Initiative: The First Year


August 25th, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is part of a periodic Health Affairs Blog series, which will run over the next year, looking at payment and delivery reforms in Arkansas and Oregon. The posts will be based on evaluations of these reforms performed with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors of this post are part of the team evaluating the Arkansas model.

Arkansas payers and providers actively participated in the design of both the episodic payment and patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models the state has recently implemented. We’ve written about each of these components of the multi-payer Arkansas Payment Improvement Initiative (APII) in our previous Health Affairs Blog posts.

The state’s fragmented and largely rural provider environment presents an important test for a novel episodic payment model that may, if successful, have broader applicability in other states sharing a similar health care landscape. Fourteen episodes have now been launched and provider participation is mandatory. While our first posting goes into greater detail on the nuances of Arkansas’ approach to episodes, we provide the following brief summary here to add context to this discussion.

Read the rest of this entry »

The “Failure” Of Bundled Payment: The Importance Of Consumer Incentives


August 21st, 2014

Bundled payment for orthopedic and spine surgery and other major acute interventions has many attractive features, in principle. But implementation has been difficult in practice.  The recent Health Affairs paper by Susan Ridgley and colleagues, and the Health Affairs Blog commentary by Tom Williams and Jill Yegian, list quite a few practical implementation problems, and the points raised in both these pieces are well taken.

As leaders in the Integrated Health Association (IHA) bundled payment initiative, we shared the same hopes, devoted the same energies, and share the same frustrations with the modest results.  We feel it is important to emphasize what we consider to be the initiative’s most important design failure: the lack of engagement and alignment on the part of the consumer.  No one will ever reform the U.S. health care system without bringing the consumer along and, indeed, placing consumer choice and accountability at the very center of the reform initiative.

On an optimistic note, this design failure is being addressed by the larger health care marketplace in the wake of numerous failed attempts to reform health care by focusing exclusively on provider payment and incentives.

Read the rest of this entry »

Decoding 2015 Health Insurance Rate Increase Requests


August 4th, 2014

Note: In addition to Christopher Koller, Sabrina Corlette coauthored this post.

The rates are coming, the rates are coming.

While there seem to be fewer “latest verdicts on the ACA,” breathlessly reported in the popular press, as we move through the second half of 2014, the filing of 2015 rate requests for individual and small group products on the health insurance exchanges offer one more piece of catnip for pundits.

Who is up? Who is down? How much? Is this the dreaded death spiral for the ACA? Or its vindication?

As discussions and analysis of these increases are disseminated, it is important to remember the following points

Read the rest of this entry »

An Ounce Of Prevention For The ACA’s Second Open Enrollment


August 4th, 2014

Note: In addition to Jon Kingsdale, this post is coauthored by Julia Lerche.

Since recovering from its flawed rollout, the ACA has enjoyed a string of successes. By April, some eight million Americans managed to enroll; for 2015, some reluctant insurers, including the nation’s second largest (United), are jumping into the new ACA Marketplaces; and the New England Journal of Medicine recently published an analysis confirming the ACA’s significant reduction of the uninsured.

Approximately 87 percent of Marketplace enrollees claimed premium tax credits, of which an estimated 85 percent, or six million, actually paid premiums. (We assume a disenrollment rate of 3 percent per month since April 2014, which is conservative compared with the Massachusetts Health Connector’s experience and in line with the assumptions of several State-based Marketplaces.) Many of the original six million, plus more recent enrollees, will experience their second enrollment between November 15, 2014 and February 15, 2015. They will also file with the IRS for a premium tax credit as early as January 2015.

The two events in combination represent a huge risk. We hope the responsible agencies will act soon to mitigate the risks.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: King Plaintiffs Ask For Supreme Court Review


August 1st, 2014

On July 31, 2014, Michael Carvin, attorney for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, one of two parallel cases challenging an IRS rule allowing premium tax credits to be issued by federally facilitated exchange, filed a petition for a writ of certioriari in the United States Supreme Court. The petition asks the Court to review the Fourth Circuit decision affirming Judge James Spencer’s ruling rejecting their claim.

As was described here in detail last week, ACA opponents lost in the Fourth Circuit in a unanimous decision in King v. Burwell but won a split decision in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in Halbig v. Burwell. Carvin is thus seeking Supreme Court review based on a split of authority between the circuits that must be resolved by the Supreme Court.

It is not the intent of this post to review the arguments in Carvin’s brief. Carvin argues that judges Griffith and Randolph made the right decision in Halbig, and that judges Gregory, Thacker and Davis in the Fourth Circuit and Edwards in the D.C. Circuit are wrong. There is really only one new argument in the petition that was not made below, namely that Congress’ intent to deny premium tax credits in states that failed to establish exchanges has now been conclusively established by statements made by Jon Gruber two years after the statute was adopted. This disregards the fact that Gruber neither drafted nor voted on the ACA and had earlier stated that premium tax credits were available in federally facilitated exchange states.

Rather than rehashing the merits, this post will discuss the timing of the petition, the basis on which it can be accepted, and the consequences if it succeeds. Nothing will happen immediately with this petition. The government has 30 days to respond, and can request additional time. The appellants then have 14 days to reply. This puts us into mid-September. It is unlikely, therefore, that the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to accept the petition until it reconvenes in October

Read the rest of this entry »

Taking Stock Of The ACA: The Latest Data From The Health Reform Monitoring Survey


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 29th 2014, 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 is 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 »

Revisiting Primary Care Workforce Data: A Future Without Barriers For Nurse Practitioners And Physicians


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 »

Implementing Health Reform: What Makes A State Exchange? (Updated)


July 28th, 2014

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 »

Implementing Health Reform: Appellate Decisions Split On Tax Credits In ACA Federal Exchange


July 23rd, 2014

July 22, 2014 was arguably the most important day in the history of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the National Federation of Independent Business case in June of 2012. As no doubt most readers of this blog know by now, shortly after 10 a.m. the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed down its decision in Halbig v. Burwell. Two judges ruled over a strong dissent that an Internal Revenue Service rule allowing federally facilitated exchanges to issue premium tax credits to low and moderate income Americans is invalid.

Approximately two hours later the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously upheld the IRS rule in King v. Burwell. Combined, the cases contain five judicial opinions, three in the Halbig case and two in King. Four of the six judges voted to uphold the rule, two to strike it down.

The Controversy

The issue in the cases is this: The ACA authorizes the IRS to provide premium tax credits to individuals with household incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level who are not eligible for other minimum essential coverage (such as affordable and adequate employer coverage, Medicaid, or Medicare). Premium tax credits are, however, only available to individuals who purchase coverage through the exchanges.

The ACA requests that the states establish exchanges, and sixteen states and the District of Columbia have done so. The ACA also, however, authorizes the federal government to establish exchanges in states that fail to set up their own exchanges. The federal government has done so in 34 states and is operating the individual exchange for two more. The IRS regulation allows premium tax credits to be awarded to eligible individuals in both states with state-operated exchanges and states with federal exchanges.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Alternative Payment Methodology In Oregon Community Health Centers: Empowering New Ways Of Providing Care


July 21st, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is part of a periodic Health Affairs Blog series, which will run over the next year, looking at payment and delivery reforms in Arkansas and Oregon. The posts will be based on evaluations of these reforms performed with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors of this post are part of the team evaluating the Oregon model.

The Alternative Payment Methodology (APM) demonstration project enables participating Oregon community health centers to receive a monthly payment based on the size and composition of their patient population. This payment replaces the model of earning revenue based on the number of individual patients seen, shifting the paradigm from the number of doctor visits to the provision of high-quality, team-based, patient-centered care.

So what are the real changes physicians are seeing on the ground in clinics where APM is being implemented?

Read the rest of this entry »

The Medicaid Boom And State Budgets: How Federal Waivers Are Advancing State Flexibility


July 18th, 2014

Note: The authors would like to thank Erica Socker, Senior Research Associate, and Michelle Shaljian, Associate Director of Communications, for their review and editorial assistance.

According to data released by the Department of Health and Human Services, one in five Americans now receive their health insurance through a state Medicaid program. Despite this increase in enrollment, it is estimated that 6 million Americans will likely remain uninsured because 20 states have decided not to expand Medicaid as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) envisioned. There are at least four states that are considering expanding Medicaid but have yet to do so.

Medicaid expansion continues to be one of the most politically charged directives of the health care law, mainly because the Supreme Court decision left the choice to states. This decision has generated an ongoing debate about whether and how states should expand their Medicaid programs. For example, an intense debate has been underway in Virginia, over the decision to include Medicaid expansion in the state budget; putting Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe at odds with the Republican State Legislature. Similar debates are occurring in states across the country, and are further complicated by states’ option to pursue alternative expansion approaches under a Medicaid waiver. For states that have not yet expanded the program, the success of these alternative expansion models may influence whether they can find a politically feasible path forward.

Read the rest of this entry »

Asking The Wrong Question About Health Professionals


July 15th, 2014

I spent a significant part of my professional career pursuing “rational” policies to guide the numbers of health workers needed. I now understand that most of these moves on the policy side were fool’s errands, when measured against the powerful corrective forces of the labor and education markets.

In fact, the elasticity of these markets has been generally unanticipated by most of the workforce models. For instance, few recognized the shrinkage of incoming nursing classes in the waning years of the twentieth century. It was only in 2001, when the number of nurses passing the licensing exam fell to 28 percent, less than it had been just six years before, that alarm bells went off. New policies spurred the creation of schools, existing programs were expanded, and a raft of workplace changes were put in place to make nursing more attractive and sustainable. By 2005, more candidates passed the exam than in 1995, the previous high water mark. By 2009, the number had increased by 38 percent.

Similar unexpected market responses have been reflected in such trends as the growth of osteopathic medical colleges, expansion of proprietary allied health education, delayed retirement by many professionals, and a host of second-career entries into health professional work.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Health Reform Framework: Breaking Out Of The Medicaid Model


July 10th, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is coauthored by Joseph Antos and James Capretta.

A primary aim of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to expand insurance coverage, especially among households with lower incomes. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that about one-third of the additional insurance coverage expected to occur because of the law will come from expansion of the existing, unreformed Medicaid program. The rest of the coverage expansion will come from enrolling millions of people into subsidized insurance offerings on the ACA exchanges — offerings that have strong similarities to Medicaid insurance.

Unfortunately, ample evidence demonstrates that this kind of insurance model leaves the poor and lower-income households with inadequate access to health care. The networks of physicians and hospitals willing to serve large numbers of Medicaid patients have been very constrained for many years, meaning access problems will only worsen when more people enroll and begin using the same overburdened networks of clinics and physician practices.

It does not have to be this way. It is possible to expand insurance coverage for the poor and lower-income households without reliance on the flawed Medicaid insurance model. Opponents of the ACA should embrace plans to replace the current law with reforms that would give the poor real choices among a variety of competing insurance offerings, including the same insurance plans that middle-class families enroll in today. Specifically, we propose a three-part plan that includes a flexible, uniform tax credit for all those who lack employer-based coverage; deregulation of Medicaid; and improved safety-net primary and preventive care.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Payment Reform Landscape: Bundled Payment


July 2nd, 2014

Getting a good deal for a package price is something we’re all familiar with as consumers.  In health care, that might mean creating incentives for health care providers to improve the continuity and coordination of care, leading to better patient outcomes and lower costs. Paying for a set of services, not “per unit of care delivered’ under the fee-for-service model, is typically called bundled or episode- based payment.

Bundled payment is a single payment to providers or health care facilities (or jointly to both) for all services to treat a given condition or provide a given treatment. Unlike some of the other payment reform models I’ve discussed on Health Affairs Blog, such as pay-for-performance, bundled payment asks providers to assume financial risk for the cost of services for a particular treatment or condition, as well as costs associated with preventable complications.

Read the rest of this entry »

Happy Birthday HCPF


July 1st, 2014

Today marks the 20th birthday of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.  The story of its creation provides an important reminder of how our thinking about health care has evolved over the past few decades – and how it continues to evolve today.

Back in the bad old days, Medicaid was just another social service.  Housed within a broader social services agency, Colorado Medicaid – as was the case in most states – grew up with a typical welfare mentality.  Program enrollees were beneficiaries.  If they did not enroll, we assumed it meant they did not need or want our services.  Eligibility was a cumbersome, rule-bound process with inscrutable results and unintelligible notices to applicants of what was missing from their file.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cancelled Non-Group Plans: What We Know Now That We Did Not Know In October


June 17th, 2014

In October of 2013 President Obama faced a political firestorm over the cancellation of millions of individual insurance plans — plans not compliant with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Associated Press (AP) estimated that 4.8 million persons with non-group coverage had their policies cancelled, and this estimate was widely quoted in the media and the Congress. In headline stories, the media also reported that policyholders of the canceled plans were now offered alternative plans, often at premiums more than double of their current plans.

When the controversy over cancelled policies broke, no surveys were available to estimate the number and the cost of cancelled policies. In October, HealthCare.gov and many state-based marketplace websites were virtually non-functional, so assessing comparative cost and benefits of cancelled and Marketplace plans largely was precluded. In this post I highlight information from subsequent surveys and analyses conducted in late 2013 and 2014 that measure the number of cancelled plans and the comparative cost of coverage in the pre-ACA and post ACA-Markets. The next two paragraphs summarize findings.

Recent survey data indicates the number of persons affected by cancelled policies was about 1.9 million persons, less than the often cited 4.8 million estimate. When persons with group health insurance are included in the denominator, these cancellations affected less than one percent of persons holding comprehensive private insurance. The number of people with non-group policies who became uninsured following last October’s cancellation of policies is similar to what occurs in the normal churn of the non-group market.

Read the rest of this entry »

Changing Provider Networks In Marketplace Health Plans: Balancing Affordability And Access To Quality Care


June 11th, 2014

Editor’s note: In addition to Sabrina Corlette, JoAnn Volk, Robert Berenson, and Judy Feder coauthored this post. 

Twelve percent of the complaints to California’s Department of Managed Health Care this year relate to access to care problems. In New Hampshire, consumers were upset to learn that their local hospital had been excluded from the network of the sole insurance company participating on the state’s health insurance marketplace. In reaction to concerns about narrowing networks, legislators in Mississippi and North Dakota considered “any willing provider” legislation this year.

But at the same time, the Congressional Budget Office expects narrow networks to help reduce marketplace costs by billions of dollars. Network configurations clearly offer consumers a cost-access trade-off. Narrowing networks is by no means a new trend – using network design to constrain providers’ price demands has long predated the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In the new marketplaces, insurers are using narrow networks to help keep premiums low for price-sensitive purchasers. But if a plan’s low premium reflects limited network access, its policyholders might not only face compromised quality care but unanticipated and potentially crippling financial liabilities.

Regulators are recognizing this trade-off and reconsidering network standards at the state and federal level. But regulators face a challenge: If they overly constrain insurers’ ability to negotiate with providers, consumers could face significant premium increases. On the other hand, if they ignore provider participation issues, consumers will lack confidence that there is a sufficient network to deliver the benefits promised without posing financial or quality risks.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: SHOP Employee Choice State Opt-Outs And Navigator Grants (Updated)


June 10th, 2014

On June 10, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released the list of federal exchange states where employee choice will not be available for the SHOP exchange for 2015. CMS had provided that the federal exchange would, beginning in 2015, permit employers in the SHOP exchange to either 1) choose a single plan for their employees, or 2) choose a metal tier (bronze, silver, gold, or platinum) and then allow employees to choose any plan offered within that tier, with the exchange aggregating premiums from the various plans chosen by employees and allowing the employer to pay a single premium. In the 2015 exchange final rule, however, CMS permitted state insurance commissioners in federal exchange states to ask that their states be allowed to opt out of employee choice for 2015 if they concluded that employee choice would cause adverse selection within their small group insurance markets.

Apparently, 18 state insurance commissioners asked that their states be allowed to opt out and all requests were granted. Federal exchange states that will not offer employee choice in 2015 include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Employers in these states will be able to offer their employees a single health and a single dental plan through the SHOP exchange.

Employee choice will be available in 14 states: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Employers in these states will be able to either offer their employees a single health and dental plan, or offer them a choice of health plans within a single metal level and dental plans within a single coverage level.

Barring a further change in policy, employee choice will be available in all federal exchange states in 2016. Employee choice was already available in most of the state exchange states for 2014, and presumably will continue to be so in 2015

Read the rest of this entry »

The Payment Reform Landscape: Capitation With Quality


June 6th, 2014

When I began this blog series in February, I explained how Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR) views different payment reform models along a continuum of financial risk. Thus far, we have used this series to explore the evidence behind “upside only” models that give providers the chance for a financial upside, but no added financial risk, or downside. We’ve looked at the evidence behind pay-for-performance and per-member per-month payments to support patient-centered medical homes. This month, we move across the risk spectrum to examine a model that offers both upside and downside financial risk for providers—capitation.

What is Capitation? Is It Widespread?

Capitation is nothing new when it comes to paying for health care. It had its heyday in the HMO era of the 1990 s, but something was seriously lacking in the capitation arrangements of the past that led to a strong backlash from consumers. Consumers feared their health plans were more interested in saving money than providing them with the quality care they needed; in a Kaiser Family Foundation Survey at the time, most reported they or someone they knew had a problem with their plan. Some of these fears proved to be warranted. Fortunately, since the 90s, payers and providers have worked to put quality safeguards in place.

When tracking value-oriented payment, CPR only examines capitation arrangements with a quality measurement and incentive component — what we call “capitation with quality.” CPR defines capitation with quality as “a fixed dollar payment to providers for the care that patients may receive in a given time period, such as a month or year, with payment adjustments based on measured performance and patient risk.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.




This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 1307898 Spams eaten and counting...