July 10th, 2014
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 »
July 9th, 2014
Editor’s note: In addition to Josh Gray, Iyue Sung also coauthored this post.
Together, athenahealth and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) have undertaken a new joint venture called ACAView, as part of the foundation’s Reform by the Numbers project, a source for timely and unique data on the impact of health reform.
The goal of ACAView is to provide current, non-partisan measurement and analysis on how coverage expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is affecting the day-to-day practice of medicine. athenahealth provides a single-instance, cloud-based software platform to a national provider base.
Any information that our clients enter using our software is immediately aggregated into centrally hosted databases, providing us with timely visibility into patient characteristics, clinical activities, and practice economics at medical groups around the country. Read the rest of this entry »
July 7th, 2014
Editor’s note: In addition to Jennifer DeCubellis, Leon Evans also coauthored this post.
The United States spends 250 percent more than any other developed country on health care services, yet we are ranked below 16 other countries in overall life expectancy. A less frequently discussed statistic, however, is the degree to which the U.S. under-invests in social services: for every dollar spent on health care, only 50 cents is invested in social services. In comparison, other developed countries spend roughly $2 on social services for every dollar spent on health care. The U.S. is 10th among developed countries in its combined investment in health care and social services.
This imbalance has ramifications for the nation’s Medicaid program, where just five percent of beneficiaries with complex health and social problems drive more than 50 percent of all program costs. Many individuals in this high-cost group have chronic complex medical, behavioral health, and/or supportive service needs, and in the absence of coordinated intervention, they tend to be frequent visitors to emergency rooms and have high rates of avoidable hospital admissions. Read the rest of this entry »
July 4th, 2014
July 6, 2014 update: After reading Marty Lederman’s post on the Wheaton College decision, and rereading the federal regulations, I conclude that Justice Sotomayor, Judge Posner, and I were wrong in contending that the Form 700 served no other purpose than to communicate Wheaton College’s religious beliefs to its third-party administrator (TPA). This goes to the third point discussed below as to the burden the regulation places on Wheaton. Form 700 also, under the federal regulations, has the effect of authorizing the TPA to serve as plan administrator in providing contraceptive benefits. The extent to which this imposes an impermissible substantial burden on Wheaton College’s free exercise of religion is a debatable question, but the Court could conclude consistent with Hobby Lobby that it does.
Professor Lederman’s post also raises the question as to whether the accommodation such as the one I suggest below can be made to work under ERISA, as it is not clear under what authority the government could appoint the TPA to serve as plan administrator under ERISA or otherwise to provide contraceptive benefits under ERISA. Apparently the majority of the Court believes this is possible. If the Court ultimately concludes that it is not possible, this could well mean that there is no less restrictive alternative under RFRA, and that the accommodation currently in place is enforceable.
Original post: On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court decided its second contraceptive case of the 2013-2014 term, Wheaton College v. Burwell. The decision demonstrates why more Americans now believe that the justices are doing a poor job (27 percent) than believe they are doing an excellent or good job (26 percent combined), and why 76 percent of Americans believe that the justices decides cases based on their own personal and political opinions rather than legal analysis.
The Wheaton College decision seems to contradict directly the Hobby Lobby decision the Court had entered three days earlier. The Court offered virtually no justification for its change of position. Indeed, one wonders whether the men on the Court, in their haste to get out of town even bothered to read the scathing but well-reasoned dissent filed by Justice Sotomayor for the women of the Court, with which they did not engage. Read the rest of this entry »
July 3rd, 2014
Editor’s note: In addition to Darshak Sanghavi, Mark McClellan, and Kavita Patel, this post is also authored by Kate Samuels, project manager at Brookings. It is adapted from a forthcoming full-length case study, the second in a series from the Engelberg Center’s Merkin Initiative on Physician Payment Reform and Clinical Leadership designed to support clinician leadership of health care delivery, payment, and financing reform. The case study will be presented during the Merkin Initiative’s “MEDTalk” event on July 9 from 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM EDT, featuring live story-telling and knowledge-sharing from patients, providers, and policymakers.
Oncology practices and hospitals across the nation struggle with providing sustainable, comprehensive, and coordinated cancer care. Clinical leaders with strategies and models to improve the quality and value of health care often don’t know how to navigate the landscape of payment and delivery reform options to sustain their innovations.
We use a case study approach to investigate and tell the story of the New Mexico Cancer Center (NMCC), an independent cancer center that is experimenting with innovative ways to improve patient-centered oncology care. We identify challenges for creating sustainable and supportive payments models, and we share the broader strategic and policy lessons for adopting alternative payment models. Read the rest of this entry »
July 3rd, 2014
Editor’s note: In addition to Sara Rosenbaum, Adam Sonfield and Rachel Benson Gold also coauthored this post. Also on HA Blog, you can read other perspectives on the Hobby Lobby decision by Tim Jost and John Kraemer.
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that has the potential to undermine an important provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that establishes for women a federal guarantee of coverage for their full range of contraceptive methods, services, and counseling without any out-of-pocket costs. This guarantee is administered through private health plans, whether purchased in the individual market or made available through the insurers and plan administrators that provide group coverage.
The 5-4 ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, written by Justice Samuel Alito on behalf of the Court’s conservative bloc, held that closely held for-profit corporations that assert a religious objection to some or all forms of contraception cannot be required to include such coverage in the health plans they sponsor for employees and their families. As emphasized by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent (joined in whole by Justice Sotomayor and in part by Justices Kagan and Breyer), the Court’s decision could have serious and widespread consequences. Read the rest of this entry »
July 2nd, 2014
Editor’s note: Carol O’Shaughnessy 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.
Family caregivers — what would we do without them? So why can’t we do more for and with them?
Many studies have demonstrated that family caregivers provide a wide range of essential care to people with serious chronic illnesses or disabilities — the same people who can benefit from palliative care applied as an ongoing approach to care, not just a hospital-based intervention.
It is family caregivers who are responsible for much of the complex care at home, including managing pain and other medications, monitoring equipment, and communicating with the palliative care team. To say that most family caregivers are not prepared to take on this demanding role is an understatement. Read the rest of this entry »
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 »
July 1st, 2014
Editor’s note: In addition to Jonathan Darrow, this post is also coauthored by Aaron Kesselheim.
The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to evaluate all prescription drugs and high-risk medical devices before they can be marketed to physicians and patients to ensure that they are safe and effective.
However, there is growing pressure to lessen the traditional standards for defining “safe and effective” for particularly promising therapies and accelerate patient access to these products.
A recent national health policy conference in Washington, D.C., explored the nature of the evidence needed for the regulatory approval of new therapeutics and the implications for patient care. The conference was organized by the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, the National Center for Health Research, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Read the rest of this entry »
June 30th, 2014
Editor’s note: See Health Affairs Blog for more coverage of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.
Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled that for-profit companies may avoid providing contraception coverage to employees if the companies sincerely object on religious grounds. At its narrowest interpretation, this decision is a significant but remediable setback for women’s reproductive health. At its broadest (but least likely interpretation), the decision has the potential to wreak havoc on public health regulation.
The legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) contraception mandate have been well described in three previous Health Affairs Blog posts. To briefly recap, though, the ACA requires preventive services to be covered without copayments or other cost sharing in most employer-supported health plans. To implement this requirement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued regulations that include all FDA-approved contraceptives, and a company that does not provide no-cost coverage of contraception is subject to substantial penalties.
Three groups of employers are exempt from the mandate: small businesses with less than 50 employees, purely religious employers, and “grandfathered” plans that have not changed meaningfully since the ACA was passed. Additionally, religiously affiliated non-profits (such as universities and hospitals) received a special accommodation from HHS by which women can receive contraception from third-party insurers at no extra cost to employees or the organization if the organization objects to covering contraception and identifies an alternate insurer. Read the rest of this entry »