President’s Executive Order Shows Two Contrasting Visions of Health Care

As Washington remains consumed by impeachment fever, President Trump returned to the issue of health care. In an executive order released Thursday, and a speech at The Villages in Florida where he spoke on the topic, the president attempted to provide a vision that contrasts with the left’s push for single-payer socialized medicine.

This executive order focused largely on the current Medicare program, as opposed to the existing private insurance marketplace. By promoting new options and focusing on reducing costs, however, the president’s actions stand in opposition to the one-size-fits-all model of the proposed health care takeover.

The Administration Wants To Explore These Proposals

One fact worth repeating about Thursday’s action: As with prior executive orders, it will in and of itself not change policy. The more substantive changes will come in regulatory proposals issued by government agencies (most notably the Department of Health and Human Services) in response to the executive order. While only the regulations can flesh out all of the policy details, the language of the order provides some sense of the proposals the administration wants to explore.

Modernized Benefits: The executive order promotes “innovative … benefit structures” for Medicare Advantage, the program in which an estimated 24 million beneficiaries receive Medicare subsidies via a network of private insurers. It discusses “reduc[ing] barriers to obtaining Medicare Medical Savings Accounts,” a health savings account-like mechanism that gives beneficiaries incentives to serve as smart consumers of health care. To accomplish that last objective, the order references broader access to cost and quality data, “improving [seniors’] ability to make decisions about their health care that work best for them.”

Expanded Access: The order seeks to increase access to telehealth as one way to improve seniors’ ability to obtain care, particularly in rural areas. It also looks to combat state-imposed restrictions that can limit care options, and can lead to narrow physician and provider networks for Medicare Advantage plans.

More Providers: The order discusses eliminating regulatory burdens on doctors and other medical providers, a continuation of prior initiatives by the administration. It also references allowing non-physician providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, to practice to the full scope of their medical licenses and receive comparable pay for their work.

Entitlement Reform: Last, but certainly not least, the order proposes allowing seniors to opt out of the Medicare program. This proposal would not allow individuals to opt out of Medicare taxes, but it would undo current regulations that require seniors to opt into the Medicare program when they apply for Social Security.

As I had previously explained, this proposal stands as a common-sense solution to our entitlement shortfalls: After all, why should we force someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to accept Medicare benefits if they are perfectly content to use other forms of health coverage?

Democrats’ Health Care Vision Is Medicare for None

Of course, many on the socialist left have made their vision plain for quite some time: They want the government to run the entire health-care system. Ironically enough, however, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer legislation would abolish the current Medicare program in the process:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)—

(A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date of benefits under section 106(a)

As I first noted nearly two years ago, this language makes Sanders’ proposal not “Medicare for All,” but “Medicare for None.” It speaks to the radical nature of the socialist agenda that they cannot come clean with the American people about the implications of their legislation, such that even analysts at liberal think-tanks have accused them of using dishonest means to sell single-payer.

Just as important, “Medicare for None” would take away choices for seniors and hundreds of millions of other Americans. As of next year, an estimated 24 million seniors will enroll in Medicare Advantage plans to obtain their Medicare benefits. As I outline in my book, Medicare Advantage often provides better benefits to seniors, and at a lower cost to both beneficiaries and the federal government. Yet Sanders and his socialist allies want to abolish this popular coverage, to consolidate power and control in a government-run health system.

The actions the administration announced on Thursday represent the latest in a series of steps designed to offer an alternative to the command-and-control vision promoted by the left. The American people don’t deserve socialized medicine, but they don’t deserve the broken status quo either. Only true patient-centered reforms can create a health-care environment that works for seniors and the American people as a whole.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

One Way for Florida’s Legislature to Respond to a Medicaid Expansion Referendum

Last week, Politico reported on a burgeoning effort by unions and other groups to collect signatures on a ballot initiative designed to expand Medicaid in Florida. As the article notes, the effort comes after last fall’s approval of Medicaid ballot initiatives in Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska.

The effort comes as liberals try to extend “free” health care to more and more Americans. But that “free” health care comes with significant costs, and policymakers in Florida have opportunities to make those costs apparent to voters.

‘Free’ Money Isn’t Free

By contrast, the petition being circulated in Florida includes no source of funding for the state’s 10 percent share of Medicaid expansion funding under Obamacare. The failure to specify a funding source represents a typical liberal tactic. Advocates seeking to expand Medicaid have traditionally focused on the “free” money from Washington available for states that do expand. “Free” money from Washington and “free” health care for low-income individuals—what’s not to like?

Of course, Medicaid expansion has very real costs for states, without even considering the effects on their taxpayers of the federal tax increases needed to fund all that “free” money from Washington. Every dollar that states spend on providing health care to the able-bodied represents another dollar that they cannot spend elsewhere.

I have previously noted how spending on Medicaid has crowded out funding for higher education, thus limiting mobility among lower-income populations, and encourages states to prioritize the needs of able-bodied adults over individuals with disabilities, for whom states receive a lower federal Medicaid match.

Taxes Ahead? Oh Yeah, Baby

Proposing a state income tax to fund Medicaid expansion would certainly make the cost of expansion readily apparent to Florida voters, especially the retirees who moved to the Sunshine State due to its combination of warm weather and no individual income tax. Voters would likely think twice if Medicaid expansion came with an income tax—which of course lawmakers could raise in the future, to fund all manner of government spending.

Prior efforts suggest that making the costs of Medicaid expansion apparent to voters appreciably dampens support. Utah approved its ballot initiative, which included a sales tax increase, with a comparatively small (53.3 percent) approval margin. In Montana, a referendum proposing a tobacco tax increase to fund a continuation of that state’s Medicaid expansion (which began in 2016) went down to defeat in November.

New Taxes Are an Uphill Battle

Liberal groups already face challenges in getting a Medicaid ballot initiative approved in Florida. The state constitution requires 60 percent approval for all initiative measures intended to change that document, a higher bar than advocates for expansion have had to clear elsewhere. Of the four states where voters approved Medicaid expansion—Maine, Nebraska, Utah, and Idaho—only the margin in Idaho exceeded 60 percent, and then just barely (60.58 percent).

Disclosure: While the author served on the health care transition advisory committee of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the views expressed above represent his personal views only.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Exclusive: Inside the Trump Administration’s Debate over Expanding Obamacare

Last August, I responded to a New York Times article indicating that some within the Trump administration wanted to give states additional flexibility to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. Since then, those proposals have advanced, such that staff at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) believe that they have official sign-off from the president to put those proposals into place.

My conversations with half a dozen sources on Capitol Hill and across the administration in recent weeks suggest that the proposal continues to move through the regulatory process. However, my sources also described significant policy pitfalls that could spark a buzz-saw of opposition from both the left and the right.

The Times reported that some within the administration—including CMS Administrator Seema Verma and White House Domestic Policy Council Chairman Andrew Bremberg—have embraced the proposal. But if the plan overcomes what the Times characterized as a “furious” internal debate, it may face an even tougher reception outside the White House.

How It Would Work

After the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional for states as part of its 2012 ruling upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate, the Obama administration issued guidance interpreting that ruling. While the court made expansion optional for states, the Obama administration made it an “all-or-nothing” proposition for them.

Under the 2012 guidance—which remains in effect—if states want to receive the enhanced 90 percent federal match associated with expansion, they must cover the entire expansion population—all able-bodied adults with incomes under 138 percent of the federal poverty level (just under $35,000 for a family of four). If states expand only to some portion of the eligible population, they would only receive their regular Medicaid match of 50-76 percent, not the enhanced 90 percent match.

The Internal Debate

The August Times article indicated that, after considering partial expansion, the administration postponed any decision until after November’s midterm elections. Since that time, multiple sources disclosed to me a further meeting that took place on the topic in the Oval Office late last year. While the meeting was originally intended to provide an update for the president, CMS staff left that meeting thinking they had received the president’s sign-off to implement partial expansion.

Just before Christmas, during a meeting on an unrelated matter, a CMS staffer sounded me out on the proposal. The individual said CMS was looking for ways to help give states additional flexibility, particularly states hamstrung by initiatives forcing them to expand Medicaid. However, based on my other reporting, I believe that the conversation also represented an attempt to determine the level of conservative opposition to the public announcement of a decision CMS believes the president has already made.

Why Liberals Will Object

During my meeting, I asked the CMS staffer about the fiscal impacts of partial expansion. The staffer admitted that, as I had noted in my August article, exchange plans generally have higher costs than Medicaid coverage. Therefore, moving individuals from Medicaid to exchange coverage—and the federal government paying 100 percent of subsidy costs for exchange coverage, as opposed to 90 percent of Medicaid costs—will raise federal costs for every beneficiary who shifts coverage under partial expansion.

The Medicare actuary believes that the higher cost-sharing associated with exchange coverage will lead 30 percent of the target population—that is, individuals with incomes from 100-138 percent of poverty—to drop their exchange plan. Either beneficiaries will not be able to afford the premiums and cost-sharing, or they will not consider the coverage worth the money. And because 30 percent of the target population will drop coverage, the partial expansion change will save money in a given state—despite the fact that exchange coverage costs more than Medicaid on a per-beneficiary basis.

Why Conservatives Will Object

I immediately asked the CMS staffer an obvious follow-up question: Did the actuary consider whether partial expansion, by shifting the costs of expansion from the states to the federal government, would encourage more states to expand Medicaid? The staffer demurred, saying the actuary’s analysis focused on only one hypothetical state.

However, the CMS staffer did not tell me the entire story. Subsequent to my “official” meeting with that staffer, other sources privately confirmed that the actuary does believe that roughly 30 percent of the target population will drop coverage.

But these sources and others added that both the Medicare actuary and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agree that, notwithstanding the savings from current expansion states—savings associated with individuals dropping exchange coverage, as explained above—the partial expansion proposal will cost the federal government overall, because it will encourage more states to expand Medicaid.

For instance, the Council of Economic Advisers believes that spending on non-expansion states who use partial expansion as a reason to extend Medicaid to the able-bodied will have three times the deficit impact as the savings associated with states shifting from full to partial expansion.

Because the spending on new partial expansion states will overcome any potential savings from states shifting from full to partial expansion, the proposal, if adopted, would appreciably increase the deficit. While neither CBO nor the Medicare actuary have conducted an updated analysis since the election, multiple sources cited an approximate cost to the federal government on the order of $100-120 billion over the next decade.

One source indicated that the Medicare actuary’s analysis early last summer arrived at an overall deficit increase of $111 billion. The results of November’s elections—in which three non-expansion states voted to accept expansion due to ballot initiatives—might have reduced the cost of the administration’s proposal slightly, but likely did not change the estimate of a sizable deficit increase.

A net cost of upwards of $100 billion, notwithstanding potential coverage losses from individuals dropping exchange coverage in current expansion states, can only mean one thing. CBO and the Medicare actuary both believe that, by lowering the cost for states to expand, partial expansion will prompt major non-expansion states—such as Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina—to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

Who Will Support This Proposal?

Based on the description of the scoring dynamic my sources described, partial expansion, if it goes forward, seems to have no natural political constituency. Red-state governors will support it, no doubt, for it allows them to offload much of their state costs associated with Medicaid expansion onto the federal government’s debt-laden dime. Once CMS approves one state’s partial expansion, the agency will likely have a line of Republican governors out its door looking to implement waivers of their own.

But it seems unlikely that Democratic-led states will follow suit. Indeed, the news that partial expansion would cause about 30 percent of the target population to drop their new exchange coverage could well prompt recriminations, investigations, and denunciations from Democrats in Congress and elsewhere. Because at least 3.1 million expansion beneficiaries live in states with Republican governors, liberals likely would object to the sizable number of these enrollees who could decide to drop coverage under partial expansion.

Conversely, conservatives will likely object to the high net cost associated with the proposal, notwithstanding the potential coverage losses in states that have already expanded. Some within the administration view Medicaid expansion, when coupled with proposals like work requirements, as a “conservative” policy. Other administration officials view expansion in all states as something approaching a fait accompli, and view partial expansion and similar proposals as a way to make the best of a bad policy outcome.

But Medicaid expansion by its very nature encourages states to discriminate against the most vulnerable in society, because it gives states a higher match for covering able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities. In addition to objecting to a way partial expansion would increase government spending by approximately $100 billion, some conservatives would also raise fundamental objections to any policy changes that would encourage states to embrace Obamacare—and add even more able-bodied adults to the welfare rolls in the process.

Particularly given the Democratic takeover of the House last week, the multi-pronged opposition to this plan could prove its undoing. Democrats will have multiple venues available—from oversight through letters and subpoenae, to congressional hearings, to use of the Congressional Review Act to overturn any administration decisions outright—to express their opposition to this proposal.

A “strange bedfellows” coalition of liberals and conservatives outraged over the policy, but for entirely different reasons, could nix it outright. While some officials may not realize it at present, the administration may not only make a decision that conservatives will object to on policy grounds, they may end up in a political quagmire in the process.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

What the Press Isn’t Telling You about the Politics of Pre-Existing Conditions

For months, liberals have wanted to make the midterm elections about Obamacare, specifically people with pre-existing conditions. Of late, the media has gladly played into that narrative.

Numerous articles have followed upon a similar theme: Republicans claim they want to protect people with pre-existing conditions, but they’re lying, misrepresenting their records, or both. Most carry an implicit assumption: If you don’t support Obamacare, then you cannot want to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions, because defending the law as holy writ has become a new religion for the left.

Covering People Before They Develop Conditions

The Kaiser Family Foundation noted in a study earlier this year that the off-exchange individual insurance market shrank by 38 percent in just one year, from the beginning of 2017 to the beginning of 2018. Overall, enrollment in Obamacare-compliant plans for people who do not qualify for income-based subsidies fell by 2.6 million:

Most of these individuals likely dropped their plan because the rapid rise in insurance rates under Obamacare has priced them out of coverage. As a Heritage Foundation study from March noted, the pre-existing condition provisions represent the largest component of those premium increases.

Or consider the at least 4.7 million people who received cancellation notices a few short years ago, because their plan didn’t comport with Obamacare’s new regulations. The father of a friend and former colleague received such a notice. He lost his plan, couldn’t afford a new Obamacare-compliant policy, then got diagnosed with colon cancer. His “coverage” has consisted largely of a GoFundMe page, where friends and colleagues can help his family pay off tens of thousands of dollars in medical debt.

How exactly did Obamacare “protect” him—by stripping him of his coverage, or by pricing the new coverage so high he and his wife couldn’t afford it, and had to go without at the exact time they developed a pre-existing condition?

In fact, by getting politicians of both parties to claim that they want to cover people with pre-existing conditions, this campaign may actually encourage more healthy people to drop their insurance, thinking they can easily buy coverage if they do develop a costly condition.

Obamacare Plans Discriminate Too

The left’s messaging also ignores another inconvenient truth: Because they must accept all applicants, Obamacare plans have a strong incentive to avoid sick people. They can accomplish this goal through tactics like narrow provider networks. Because plans must offer rich benefits and accept all applicants, shrinking doctor and hospital networks provides one of the few ways to moderate premiums. Of course, keeping a clinic like the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center out of one’s network—which all Texas-based Obamacare plans do—also discourages cancer patients from signing up for coverage, a “win-win” from the insurer’s perspective.

Some plans have used more overt forms of discrimination. For instance, in 2014 a group of HIV patients filed a complaint against several Florida insurers. The complaint alleged that the carriers placed all their HIV drugs into the highest formulary tier, to discourage HIV-positive patients from signing up for coverage.

Problem with Pre-Existing Condition Provisions

More than 18 months ago, I wrote that Republicans could either maintain the status quo on pre-existing conditions, or they could repeal Obamacare, but they could not do both. That scenario remains as true today as it did then.

Also true: As long as the pre-existing condition “protections” remain in place, millions of individuals will likely remain priced out of coverage, and insurers will have reason to discriminate against the sick. In fact, the last several years of premium spikes have already turned the exchanges into a de facto high-risk pool, where only the sickest (or most heavily subsidized) patients bother enrolling.

For individuals with pre-existing conditions, there are several—and, in my view, better—alternatives to both the status quo and the status quo ante that preceded Obamacare. But we will never have a chance to have that conversation if few will examine the very real trade-offs the law has created. Based on the past few months, neither the left nor the media appear interested in doing so.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Florida Democrats’ Campaign to Abolish Seniors’ Medicare

Full disclosure: I have done paid consulting work for Florida’s current governor, Rick Scott, in his campaign against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. And I have provided informal advice to Rep. Ron DeSantis, the Republican nominee for governor. However, neither the Scott nor DeSantis campaigns had any involvement with this article, and my views are—as always—my own.

On Tuesday, Democrats in Florida nominated an unusual candidate for governor, and it has nothing to do with his skin color or background. Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who would serve as Florida’s first African-American governor if elected, says on his campaign’s website that the health plan U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has offered at the national level “will help lower costs and expand coverage to more Floridians.”

SEC. 901. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAMS.

(a) MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND STATE CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (SCHIP).—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)—

(A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date of benefits under section 106(a)… [emphasis added].

In case you didn’t know, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act refers to Medicare. Section 901(a)(1)(A) of Sanders’ bill, which he brands as “Medicare-for-all,” would prohibit the Medicare program from paying out any benefits once the single-payer system takes effect. Section 701(d) of his bill would liquidate the Medicare trust funds, transferring “any funds remaining in” them to the single-payer plan.

In other words, Democrats just nominated as a statewide candidate in Florida—a state with the highest population of seniors, and where seniors and near-seniors (i.e., all those over age 50) comprise nearly half of the voting electorate—someone who, notwithstanding Sanders’ claims about his single-payer bill, supports legislation that would abolish Medicare for seniors entirely. Good luck with that.

That’s What ‘Radical Experiment’ Means, Folks

The recent hullabaloo over an estimated budget score of the Sanders plan, which would require tens of trillions—yes, I said trillions—of dollars in tax increases, highlighted only one element of its radical nature. However, as I pointed out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this year, the Sanders experiment would go far beyond raising taxes, by abolishing traditional Medicare, along with just about every other form of insurance.

Everyone else, which is roughly 300 million people, would lose their current coverage. Traditional Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program would all evaporate. Even the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program would disappear.

With those changes in coverage, people could well lose access to their current doctors. As a study earlier this summer noted, medical providers like doctors and hospitals would get paid at much lower reimbursement rates, of 40 percent lower than private insurance. (A liberal blogger claimed earlier this week that, because other payers reimburse at lower levels than private insurers, the average pay cut to a doctor or hospital may total “only” 11-13 percent.)

Doctors and hospitals would also have to provide more health care services to more people, since “free” health care without co-payments will induce more demand for care. If you think doctors will voluntarily work longer hours for even less pay, I’ve got some land I want to sell you.

Déjà vu All Over Again?

In 1983, the British Labour Party wrote an election manifesto that one of its own members of Parliament famously dubbed “the longest suicide note in history.” That plan pledged unilateral nuclear disarmament, higher taxes on the rich, to abolish the House of Lords, and renationalization of multiple industries.

Although Sanders’ bill weighs in at 96 pages in total, opponents of the legislation can sum up its contents much more quickly: “It abolishes Medicare for seniors.” That epithet could prove quite a short suicide note for Gillum—and the Left’s socialist dreams around the country.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Yes, Obamacare Really Does Disadvantage Individuals with Disabilities

My article last week regarding disability groups’ political and policy views prompted some comments and criticisms on Twitter. Rather than trying to explain detailed subjects in bursts of 140-character tweets, I considered it best to compile them into a longer-form article.

To summarize my prior work: Obamacare provides states with a greater incentive to expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults than to cover services for individuals with disabilities. States receive a 95 percent match this year (declining to 90 percent in 2020 and all future years) to cover the able-bodied, but a match ranging from 50-75 percent to cover individuals with disabilities, while more than half a million are on waiting lists to receive home or attendant care.

Many of the responses I discuss in greater detail below attempt to obscure two separate and distinct issues: The question of the amount of funding for programs versus the priorities within those programs.

As a conservative, I’m likely to disagree with liberals on the ideal size of many government programs, but I thought I would at least agree with them that individuals with disabilities should receive precedence within those programs. However, Obamacare actually tilted Medicaid’s preference away from individuals with disabilities, which makes disability groups’ silence on that front surprising.

There Is No Correlation Between Waiting Lists and Medicaid Expansion

The timeliest rebuttal comes from a story on a long-term care report none other than AARP released yesterday. Susan Reinhard with that organization—no right-wing conservative group, by any stretch—said that

Many states have struggled to expand home- and community-based options for Medicaid enrollees needing long-term care because that is an optional benefit. Nursing homes are mandatory under federal law. While states focus on Medicaid coverage for children and families — as well as non-disabled adults covered by the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act — adults with disabilities have received less attention. ‘Long-term care is a stepchild of the program and not a top focus for states,’ she said. (emphasis mine.)

That statement notwithstanding, several people cited two different analyses that compare states’ decisions on expansion to the able-bodied and their waiting lists for home-based care for individuals with disabilities. But each of those “studies” (based on only one year of data available) take an overly simplistic approach, and therefore don’t get at the core issue of the extent to which the skewed incentives Obamacare created have encouraged states to prioritize the able-bodied over those with disabilities.

A state’s decision to expand Medicaid to the able-bodied, or reduce its waiting lists for individuals with disabilities, depends on myriad factors. For instance:

  • A wealthy state with a greater tax base would have more resources both to expand Medicaid to the able-bodied and to reduce its waiting list of individuals with disabilities, while a poorer state with a smaller tax base might not have resources to do either;
  • A state with “bad” demographics (e.g., an older and sicker population), or higher costs for health and personal care services, might have more difficulty reducing their Medicaid waiting lists;
  • A state may face other fiscal pressures—controversy over school funding, a natural disaster, a pension crisis—that could affect overall Medicaid spending.

Numerous variables affect states’ budget choices, and therefore their Medicaid waiting lists. The “studies” controlled for exactly none of them. They examined whether a state expanded Medicaid and the total number of people on a state’s waiting list, and that’s it.

Moreover, under Obamacare, all states receive the same (higher) federal match to cover able-bodied adults—another change in policy (prior to Obamacare, all Medicaid match rates were based on states’ relative income) skewing the balance in favor of wealthier expansion states. Yet, as noted above, the analyses claiming no correlation between expansion and Medicaid waiting lists didn’t even attempt to control for these variables—or any other.

Therefore, in the absence of a quality study examining the issue, I’ll go with something far simpler: Common sense. If you’re a state that wants to spend more money on Medicaid, and you can do something (i.e., cover the able-bodied) that gives you 95 cents on the dollar, or something (i.e., reduce waiting lists for individuals with disabilities) that gives you 50 cents on the dollar, which are you going to do first?

I thought so. The incentives in Obamacare strongly favor coverage of the able-bodied over coverage for individuals with disabilities. And no number of crude analyses attempting to provide retroactive justification for this bad policy can hide that fact.

Waiting Lists Are Worst In Two Non-Expansion States

This comment reinforces the crudeness of the analysis being cited. All else being equal, as the second- and third-largest states in the Union, Texas and Florida would be expected to have a larger number of people on its waiting lists for home- and community-based services than a smaller expansion state like Connecticut. All else isn’t equal, of course, but did the analysts attempt to control for these kinds of factors? Nope. They examined raw waiting list numbers, rather than waiting lists as a percentage of the population.

But just suppose for a second that the commenters above are correct, and there is no correlation between expansion to the able-bodied and waiting lists for home-based care. That means that the greater incentives Obamacare gives to states to cover the able-bodied—and while the advocacy community might not want to admit it, Obamacare clearly does give states greater incentives to cover the able-bodied—didn’t affect state behavior, or decisions about whether to reduce disability waiting lists at all.

In that case, why has the disability community expressed such outrage about the impact of per capita caps or block grants on Medicaid beneficiaries with disabilities? If states make decisions without considering federal incentives—the point of the claims that there is no correlation between expanding Medicaid to the able-bodied and longer waiting lists for individuals with disabilities—then why also claim that “cost-shifting to states will force massive cuts in Medicaid services?” Why wouldn’t states shift around resources to protect individuals with disabilities—what the disability community claims that states did to reduce waiting lists even while expanding Medicaid under Obamacare?

There are really only two credible possibilities:

  • States are affected by incentives, therefore Obamacare—by giving states a higher match to cover the able-bodied—encouraged discrimination against individuals with disabilities; or
  • States are not affected by incentives, and therefore the per capita caps—which generate a comparatively small amount of savings in the House repeal bill—will have little impact, because states will re-prioritize their budgets to protect the most vulnerable.

It’s therefore worth asking why some appear to be trying to argue both sides of this question, and doing so in a way that neatly lines up with partisan lines—trying to ignore Obamacare’s skewed incentives, while roundly castigating the House Republican bill for incentives that will “force massive cuts in Medicaid.”

Republicans’ Bill Would Cut Program Helping People Live at Home

This is a true statement: Section 111(2) of the American Health Care Act, House Republicans’ “repeal-and-replace” bill, would sunset the enhanced match for the Community First Choice program on January 1, 2020. That option provides states with a 6 percent increase in their federal match for home- and community-based services, including to individuals with disabilities. But here again, raising this issue demonstrates the inherent disconnect between the incentives being offered to states, and the disability community’s responses to those incentives.

  • Obamacare provides states with a match ranging from 20-45 percentage points higher to cover the able-bodied than individuals with disabilities: “No correlation between expansion and waiting lists for individuals with disabilities!”
  • Obamacare provides states with a 6 percentage point increase for home-based services: A “huge change to improve HCBS [home and community-based services] care.”
  • The Republican alternative to Obamacare would reduce Medicaid spending for traditional (i.e., non-expansion) populations by a comparatively small amount: “Massive cuts to Medicaid services.”

Isn’t there a slight contradiction in these responses—both in their tone and in their logic? And isn’t it worth noting that these contradictions all happen to align perfectly with the natural partisan response to each of these issues?

This Is A Political Problem, Not a Policy Problem

Claiming that the greater federal match to cover able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities stems from a “political history problem” deliberately obscures its roots. This “history” did not take place half a century ago, at Medicaid’s creation, it took place in the past few years, as part of Obamacare.

When crafting that legislation, Democrats could have come up with other policy solutions that expanded Medicaid to the able-bodied without discriminating against individuals with disabilities in the process. They could have proposed increasing the federal match for coverage of individuals with disabilities, in exchange for states covering the able-bodied at the existing federal match rates. Congress enacted a similar type of “swap” in the Medicare Modernization Act. The federal government took over the prescription drug cost of Medicare-Medicaid “dual eligibles” in exchange for a series of “clawback” payments from states.

Democrats in Congress could have considered other ways to expand Medicaid without giving states a greater match to cover the able-bodied than individuals with disabilities. To the best of my knowledge, they chose not to do so. President Obama could have insisted on a more equitable Medicaid formula, but he chose not to do so. And the disability community could have pointed out this disparity to the president and leaders in Congress, but chose not to do so.

Agree or disagree with them, these were deliberate policy choices, not a mere historical accident.

How Can You Support Lower Funding While Complaining About Access?

The argument about lower funding levels misses several points. First, while the Congressional Budget Office has not released estimates of how much the per capita caps (as opposed to changes associated with scaling back Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion) will reduce federal spending, multiple estimates suggest a comparatively small amount of savings from this particular change—at most 1 or 2 percent of spending on traditional Medicaid populations over the coming decade.

Second, if given sufficient flexibility from Washington, states can reduce their Medicaid spending, rendering the discussion of “cuts” under the caps moot. Rhode Island’s Global Compact Waiver, approved in January 2009, actually resulted in a year-on-year decline of Medicaid spending per beneficiary. Moreover, the non-partisan Lewin Group concluded that Rhode Island’s waiver reduced that spending by improving beneficiary access and care, not by denying medical services.

Third, if caps on Medicaid are so harmful and damaging, then why did Obamacare cap spending on Medicare—and why did disability groups remain silent about it? Current law imposes a per capita cap on Medicare spending, one enforced by Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) of unelected bureaucrats.

What’s more, Obamacare imposes an annual inflation adjustment (gross domestic product growth plus 1 percent) likely to be lower than the inflation adjustment for disabled populations included in the House-passed bill (medical inflation plus 1 percent). Yet a critique of the Medicare payment caps or IPAB appears nowhere in the disability community’s 14 pages of comments regarding the bill that became Obamacare.

So the question to the disability community is obvious: Why does a Democratic proposal to impose per capita caps on Medicare raise no objections, but a Republican proposal to impose (potentially higher) per capita caps on Medicaid guaranteed to prompt “massive cuts in Medicaid services?”

Let’s Just Pay More for Everyone

This comment attempts to obscure the distinction between the amount of funding and the priorities for that funding. I might disagree with liberals about the overall level of funding for the program—not least because efforts like that in Rhode Island demonstrate the potential for Medicaid to become more efficient—but I should agree with them about the need to prioritize care for the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion goes in the opposite direction.

In thinking about the important distinction between overall program funding and priorities within a program, I’m often reminded of a speech that former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) gave on the House floor in September 2009: “At some point in time, my friends, we have to buck up our courage and our judgment and say, if we take care of everybody, we won’t be able to take care of those who need us most. That’s my concern. If we take care of everybody…then we will not be able to take care of those most in need in America.”

Yes, Hoyer’s speech discussed Medicare, not Medicaid, and he voted for Obamacare (and its Medicaid expansion) six months after giving it. But the speech raises an important point about the need to prioritize entitlements, one that the notion of giving higher reimbursement rates to all populations ignores.

That’s what’s wrong with focusing solely on the question on the amount of funding for a program. Reasonable people can (and will) disagree about where to draw the funding line, but it has to be drawn somewhere. “Solving” the question of funding priorities by increasing reimbursements for all populations—the equivalent of promising everyone a pony—will, by failing to choose wisely now, cause even tougher fiscal choices for generations to come.

Disability Groups Have More Important Priorities

Yes, I have worked with disability groups. For one, in 2013, I served on the Commission on Long-Term Care Congress created in the wake of the CLASS Act’s failure and repeal. We took many hours of public testimony from disability groups and others, and received dozens of other written comments—many from dedicated and passionate parents or caregivers of individuals with disabilities, and all of which I made a point to read. I won’t claim to have made disability policy my life’s work, but my jobs over the years have intersected with the disability community on several occasions.

By claiming that disability groups have “way more priorities than comparing their FMAP [i.e., their federal match rate],” this comment actually makes my point for me. The January 2010 letter by the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) setting out priorities for what became Obamacare was 14 pages in length, amounted to over 5,500 words, and included (by my count) 73 separate bulleted recommendations regarding the legislation. All that, and yet not one word on the bill prioritizing coverage of the able-bodied over individuals with disabilities? Frankly, the issue seems quite conspicuous by its absence.

Just Interview Someone From This Consortium

I received a series of tweetsculminating in a dramatic “Shame on you”—attacking me for not having contacted any members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) prior to writing my piece. It is correct that I didn’t reach out to any CCD member groups before printing the article. I didn’t need to because I had already spent years working with them.

The charge that I never spoke to “ONE SINGLE CCD MEMBER” is false—and demonstrably so. For nearly four years, from the spring of 2004 until the end of 2007, I worked as a lobbyist for the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR). During that time, I spent many hours in CCD task force meetings, interacting both directly and indirectly with CCD members. The commenter’s accusation that if I had reached out to CCD members, I would know about the lengthy adjudication process for many Social Security disability claims holds no small amount of irony—I handled those issues over a decade ago.

In reality, my time working with CCD members while representing the disability representatives prompted me to write my article last week. While attending CCD meetings, I saw firsthand how some meeting participants—several of which remain in their current positions and active in CCD activities—made offhand comments of a rather partisan nature. Not everyone joined in the political commentary, but several felt comfortable enough to make clear their partisan affiliations in open discussions, even if I and others did not.

Similarly, I recall how the disability community fought against George W. Bush’s idea for personal accounts within Social Security almost uniformly, and even before Congress and the administration had an opportunity to fully develop their proposals. At the time, my client, the National Association of Disability Representatives, took an agnostic view towards the personal account concept, focusing more on the specifics of whether and how it could work for the disability community.

For instance, NADR wanted to ensure that any personal account proposal would hold the Social Security Disability Trust Fund (separate from the Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund) harmless, and that people who spent time receiving disability benefits would not be financially harmed (e.g., lack the opportunity to save wage earnings in a personal account, yet have their retirement benefits reduced) for having done so.

By contrast, most CCD members opposed the proposal from the get-go, often coordinating with Nancy Pelosi, Sander Levin, and other Democrats for events and strategy meetings. Archives on the disability coalition’s website from that era appear incomplete, but a 2005 August recess “Action Alert: Efforts to Privatize Social Security Continue!” gives a sense of the message coming from most CCD members, and the organization as a whole.

At this point any liberals still reading might applaud the disability community for having come out so strongly against the Bush proposal. But that idea focused on the Social Security retirement system, not the disability program, and the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress wanted to engage with disability groups to ensure any reforms held the disability community harmless. So how did failing to engage them—choosing instead to oppose from the outset—help the disability community?

In truth, early and vocal opposition to personal accounts may have put the disability community at greater risk had the personal account proposal been enacted without disability groups’ technical expertise on how best to structure it. And given both the partisan comments I heard from at least some CCD members at CCD meetings, it’s worth asking whether partisan or ideological concerns—separate and distinct from the interests of the disability community—unduly or improperly influenced the organization’s collective judgment back then.

Their inherent contradictions in the current debate—remaining silent about Obamacare’s unfair Medicaid match rate disparity and Medicare payment caps, while strenuously objecting to Republican attempts to impose payment caps on Medicaid—reinforce those concerns about undue partisanship.

It isn’t always easy stating inconvenient truths—pointing out that laws one doesn’t like should be enforced along with every other law, or where policies proposed by lawmakers with whom one might ordinarily be aligned fall woefully short. But such truth-telling remains an essential ingredient to authenticity and credibility. As I argued last week, I don’t think the disability community has done that in this case. I wish they had.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Gov. Jindal Op-Ed: Obama Wrong to Hold Florida’s Funding Hostage

“If you like your plan, you can keep it.”

There’s a reason this so-called promise from President Obama was called the “Lie of the Year” by Politifact in 2013. At least 2.6 million people received cancellation notices because their health-insurance plans did not meet Washington bureaucrats’ standards. Some got a temporary, unilateral reprieve issued by the administration in response to the public outcry, but many were forced to find new — and more expensive — insurance.

Apparently, however, President Obama isn’t content to hold the “Lie of the Year” for 2013 — he wants to win the award this year as well. Because he’s threatening Florida’s existing Medicaid program unless the state accepts Obamacare, too.

The Sunshine State has engaged in major Medicaid reforms over the past several years, one element of which has been a Low Income Pool that funds uncompensated care. The pool is up for renewal on June 30, and last week the federal government threatened to withhold its $1.3 billion in funding unless the state expands Medicaid under Obamacare: “The state’s expansion status is an important consideration in our approach regarding extending the LIP beyond June.”

In other words: Expand Obamacare as we say — or we’ll cut off billions in funding. I’d call that kind of approach Mafia-style tactics, but to do so would be an insult to TV mob boss Tony Soprano.

On many levels, this administration’s position is just plain wrong.

First, Florida should concentrate its efforts on protecting the most vulnerable, for whom Medicaid was originally designed. According to the liberal Urban Institute, nearly nine in 10 potential recipients of the Medicaid expansion — fully 87.2 percent — are able-bodied, childless adults of working age. Census Bureau data analyzed by the Foundation for Government Accountability indicate that fewer than one-quarter (23 percent) of these able-bodied recipients work full-time; nearly half (46 percent) do not work at all. Particularly given these data, Florida is absolutely right to prioritize the needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities over expanding Medicaid to able-bodied adults.

Second, the administration’s position violates the Supreme Court’s June 2012 ruling on Obamacare. Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling made Medicaid expansion optional for states. He specifically attacked the coercive nature of the law as written, calling it “economic dragooning that leaves the states with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.” Even though the Chief Justice of the United States explicitly proscribed the notion of putting “a gun to the head” of states, the Obama administration is now doing just that — holding billions of dollars in Medicaid funding hostage.

Third, the actions the Obama administration has taken to foist its unpopular law on the public haven’t just been unconstitutional — they’ve been un-American. The attempt to intimidate Florida into accepting the Medicaid expansion bears echoes of 2009, when the administration set up a special email address asking people to report “fishy” information back to the White House. From encouraging people to rat out their friends then, to threatening billions of dollars in funding for state Medicaid programs now, Obama remains hellbent on selling a law the American people have repeatedly rejected.

Perhaps he should have spent more time focusing on health reforms people actually wanted — reforms that could lower the cost of care — rather than his radical ideological vision. That way the administration could have focused its efforts on preserving its own emails, rather than collecting others’ messages in an unsuccessful attempt to make Obamacare more popular.

But so long as the administration wants to continue its Chicago-style politics — support the machine or else — Congress should put a stop to this nonsense. The Congressional Review Act may provide one avenue to overturn the spiteful decision regarding Florida’s Medicaid program. Alternatively, Congress can pass legislation — either by amending existing laws, or by using its appropriations powers to block funding — that would prevent this administration, and future administrations, from linking other unrelated matters to the question of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

Regardless of the avenue, Congress should act soon. The citizens of Florida, and other states, deserve more than to have their health-care systems turned upside-down just because Barack Obama cannot countenance the idea of anyone opposing his unpopular health-care law.

This post was originally published at the Orlando Sentinel.

21st Century Health Care Options for the States

A version of this post is available on the Galen Institute website.

Across the country, state legislatures are considering whether or not to expand their existing Medicaid programs.  Last year’s Supreme Court ruling struck down the mandatory nature of Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid to all families with incomes up to approximately $30,000 a year.  Chief Justice Roberts’ June 2012 opinion stated that the health law as originally written engaged in “economic dragooning that leaves the states with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.”[1]  The Court’s opinion gave states a choice whether or not to expand their Medicaid programs to approximately 20 million new individuals,[2] a decision which states are weighing during their current legislative sessions.

The reasons why states should NOT participate in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion are well-documented[3]: Medicaid patients have worse health outcomes than patients with other forms of insurance, and in many cases worse health outcomes than the uninsured;[4] Medicaid beneficiaries often face difficulty finding doctors who will treat them;[5] and by increasing federal spending funded by massive tax increases, a Medicaid expansion will destroy jobs rather than create them.[6]

Less well known, however, are the innovative programs states have utilized over the past several years to modernize and enhance their health sectors, expanding coverage and improving quality of care while lowering costs.  Rather than utilizing Obamacare’s top-down, government-centric approach of putting more people into a broken Medicaid program, these policy solutions seek to transform Medicaid using market incentives to create a health system that works for patients.

Recently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a bulletin providing clear evidence that the Obama administration views Medicaid expansion as an all-or-nothing proposition.[7]  The Administration apparently hopes that pressure from hospitals and special interests will force state legislators to approve Obamacare’s massive Medicaid expansion.  However, as Chief Justice Roberts indicated in his opinion last June, states now have a real choice.  Based on the examples presented below, states should choose innovative, market-driven solutions, rather than Obamacare’s bureaucratic approach.

Rhode Island

States seeking to improve their health care system should closely examine Rhode Island’s successful global compact waiver for its Medicaid program.  The waiver, negotiated by then-Gov. Don Carcieri and approved by CMS in January 2009, attempts to reduce expenses by giving the state the flexibility to improve the quality of care.  The Rhode Island waiver focuses on promoting home-and-community-based services as a more affordable (and more desirable) alternative to nursing homes, on improving access to primary care through managed care enrollment, and on other similar methods to provide quality care at better cost.  In December 2011, the non-partisan Lewin Group released an analysis of the Rhode Island global compact waiver.[8]  The Lewin report provides demonstrable examples of the waiver’s policy success, saving money while simultaneously improving care:

  • Shifting nursing home services into the community saved $35.7 million during the three-year study period
  • More accurate rate setting in nursing homes saved an additional $15 million in Fiscal Year 2010 alone
  • Better care management for adults with disabilities and special needs children saved between $4.5 and $11.9 million, and
  • Enrollment in managed care significantly increased the access of adults with disabilities to physician services.

Lewin’s conclusion:

The GW [Global Waiver] initiatives and budget actions taken by Rhode Island had a positive impact on controlling Medicaid expenditures.  The actions taken to re-balance the [Long Term Care] system appear to have generated significant savings according to our estimates.   The mandatory enrollment of disabled members in care management program reduced expenditures for this population while at the same time generally resulting in improved access to physician services.  Continuing the GW initiatives already undertaken by the state and implementing the additional initiatives included in the [Global Waiver] will result in significant savings for the Rhode Island Medicaid program in future years.[9]

All this progress comes despite the Obama administration’s efforts, not because of them.  Pages 14-15 of the Lewin report note that maintenance of effort mandates imposed in Obamacare and the “stimulus” prevented Rhode Island from imposing modest premiums on some beneficiaries, even though the approved waiver was supposed to give the state that flexibility.[10]

Despite the ways in which the Obama administration’s bureaucratic requirements interfered with Rhode Island’s ability to implement its global waiver fully, the state achieved measurable progress in reducing costs while improving care – providing a clear example that other states can emulate.

Indiana

The Hoosier State’s Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP), created in 2008, applied the principles of personal responsibility, consumer-driven health plans, and Health Savings Accounts in its expansion of coverage to low-income populations.  Initiated as part of a Medicaid demonstration waiver, the program requires individuals to make contributions to a Personal Wellness and Responsibility (POWER) account.  No beneficiary pays more than 5% of their income, and the state supplements individual contributions so that all participants will have $1,100 in their accounts to pay for routine expenses.

Healthy Indiana promotes personal responsibility in several ways.  First, the required beneficiary contributions to the POWER account ensure that all participants have an incentive to take greater responsibility for their own health and health spending.  Second, the program promotes preventive care by providing an additional $500 to fund important preventive screenings.  Moreover, only those beneficiaries who participate in a series of annual screenings may roll over unused POWER account funds from year to year.  Third, Healthy Indiana assesses co-payments for non-urgent visits to the emergency room, attempting to reverse a trend of high ER usage by Medicaid beneficiaries prevalent nationwide.[11]

Overall, Healthy Indiana has achieved many of its policy goals.  Despite the modest incomes of beneficiaries enrolled in the program – all of whom must have incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, or about $31,000 for a couple in 2013 – nearly four in five contributed to their POWER account.[12]  Nine in ten participants have at least one physician visit in their first year of enrollment, demonstrating that the HIP deductible does not hinder patients from obtaining needed care.[13]  And an analysis by the consulting firm Milliman found that parents in Healthy Indiana “seek preventive care more frequently than comparable commercial populations.”[14]

Healthy Indiana has not only proved successful – it’s been popular as well.  Only about one-quarter of participants ever enrolled in the program during its first two years left the program, “a retention rate much higher than the rate for adults in Indiana’s regular Medicaid managed care program.”[15]  Approximately 70% of beneficiaries considered the required POWER account contributions just the right amount, and 94% of members report being satisfied or highly satisfied with their coverage.[16]

A 2011 policy brief by Mathematica Policy Research commented on the program’s successes:

HIP has successfully expanded coverage for the uninsured, while giving enrolled members an important financial stake in the cost of their health care and incentives for value-based decision making.  Early implementation suggests that members value HIP benefits and that at least some low-income, uninsured adults are willing and able to contribute toward the cost of their care.[17]

Just as important, the program’s increase in preventive care, and decrease in emergency room usage, have achieved measurable savings. Milliman reports that HIP exceeded its targets for budget neutrality, spending nearly $1 billion less than its original spending cap in its first five years.[18]

In the past five years, the market-based incentives of the Healthy Indiana Plan have yielded two-fold success in improving the population while containing overall spending.  It remains to be seen whether CMS will approve an extension of HIP or will instead claim that Obamacare’s bureaucratic mandates preclude the program’s continuation.  The week the law passed, then-Gov. Mitch Daniels publicly worried that Obamacare would force him to plan for HIP’s termination.[19]  State legislators seeking to avoid Obamacare’s requirements and restrictions who are looking instead to market incentives as a way to control costs would be wise to examine the Healthy Indiana Plan approach.

Florida

Earlier this year, CMS granted approval to the state of Florida’s two waivers to alter its Medicaid program.  These waivers, which follow on the heels of a five-county pilot reform program begun in 2006, will roll out over the coming 18 months; both waivers should be fully implemented by October 2014.[20]

One of the two waivers would transform the Medicaid program for low-income beneficiaries. The waiver will allow all Medicaid recipients to enroll in managed care plans; each will have at least two, and as many as 10, Medicaid plans from which to choose.[21]  The waiver allows managed care plans – which are based in one of 11 regions – to create customized benefit packages that meet the unique needs of their local populations.  In applying for its waiver, Florida rightly noted that “each plan will face the competitive pressure of offering the most innovative package,” which will allow beneficiaries “to use their premium [dollars] to select benefit plans that best meet their needs.”[22]

Other features of the waiver likewise seek to reduce costs while improving the quality of beneficiary care.  Managed care plans will be required to “establish a program to encourage and reward healthy behaviors,” similar to the Healthy Indiana Plan incentives discussed above.[23]  Florida also is seeking waiver flexibility from CMS to encourage beneficiaries to enroll in health coverage through their employer when available and require modest cost-sharing for certain populations.[24]

Coupled with another waiver for the state’s long-term care program – one which seeks to place individuals in home and community-based services instead of nursing home facilities – the two waivers collectively will transform the Medicaid program in Florida.  The waivers’ focus on participant choice, competition among plans to enroll beneficiaries, and incentives to promote wellness and preventive care all hold the potential to provide a more personalized experience for Medicaid beneficiaries – and, just as important, a more effective and efficient one as well.

Even as Florida moves ahead on implementing its waivers, state legislators are offering state-based alternatives to Obamacare’s costly Medicaid expansion.  House Speaker Will Weatherford introduced legislation – the Florida Health Choices Plus bill – with Rep. Richard Corcoran, chairman of the House Health and Human Services Committee, to provide incentives for low-income individuals to obtain health insurance.[25]  Under the proposal, individuals with incomes below the federal poverty line would receive $2,000, deposited into a CARE (Contribution Amount for Reasonable Expenses) account.[26]  Beneficiaries would be required to deposit $25 per month, or $300 per year, into the account, and employers could contribute additional amounts as well.  The money could be used to purchase affordable health coverage in the Florida Health Choices insurance clearinghouse, or used directly for health expenses.

Because more than two in three uninsured Americans lack coverage for periods of less than a year, Florida Health Choices Plus would provide bridge funding to the majority of citizens who suffer only short spells without health insurance.[27]  It does so without providing incentives for individuals to drop private health insurance and enroll in a government program – a problem that has plagued past state coverage initiatives.[28]  The proposal includes a personal responsibility component, coupled with incentives for beneficiaries to serve as wise consumers of health care.  And it accomplishes these objectives without relying on Obamacare’s massive new gusher of federal spending.

Texas

Although it has not yet come to fruition, state thought leaders have begun to consider how additional flexibility from Washington could result in better care for patients and a more predictable and stable Medicaid budget for states.  The Texas Public Policy Foundation recently released a paper outlining its vision for a Medicaid block grant, and how Texas could use the flexibility under a block grant to revamp its existing Medicaid program.[29]  The paper describes how the amount of a block grant might be set, along with the terms and conditions establishing a new compact between the federal government and states – giving states more flexibility, but also requiring accountability for outcomes in the process.

Texas envisions a block grant as providing a way to revamp its Medicaid program for both low-income and elderly beneficiaries.  For lower-income applicants, the state could choose to subsidize private health insurance, with incentives linked to Health Savings Account (HSA) plans.  Beneficiaries would fund the difference between the amount of the state-provided subsidy and the cost of the insurance plan, “provid[ing] strong incentives to the enrolled population to purchase low premium, high value plans.  Beneficiaries selecting coverage that costs less than their premium support entitlement would be allowed to deposit the difference in an HSA.”[30]

With respect to long-term care for the elderly, the Texas paper envisions a series of reforms under a Medicaid block grant.  Incremental reforms – including partial benefits for those who seek to remain in community settings, a competitive bidding process for nursing home care, and greater restrictions on asset transfers, to ensure benefits are targeted toward truly needy individuals – would eventually lead to a fundamental transformation of the long-term care benefit into a defined contribution model.  Under this reform, “the state will provide a pre-determined level of financial support directly to those eligible by establishing and funding an account on each beneficiary’s behalf” to be used for eligible care expenses – maximizing beneficiary choice and flexibility and encouraging the use of community-based service over institutional nursing homes.

Unfortunately, a block grant requires approval from Congress – and neither the Democrat Senate nor President Obama currently appear inclined to grant states the degree of flexibility the Texas paper envisions.  But Rhode Island’s Global Waiver, approved in the final days of the George W. Bush administration, shows that the administration does have the authority to grant global waivers to other states seeking the same control over their Medicaid programs.

Nevertheless, the ideas offered in the paper present a vision where both flexibility and market incentives can provide better quality coverage to residents while providing budgetary stability to federal and state governments alike.

Learning from other states

Other examples of states taking action on their Medicaid programs:

North Carolina:  States first need to be armed with solid information about how the Medicaid program is working.  They need to know who is being helped or harmed and how much is being lost to waste and inefficiency in this ossified, rule-driven program.  In North Carolina, state auditor Beth Wood recently found that the state’s Medicaid program endured $1.4 billion in cost overruns each year, including $375 million in state dollars. As a result, North Carolina has decided not to expand its Medicaid program. Before considering any action, others states should commission objective, independent audits of their Medicaid programs to understand the program and the problems that need fixing.

New York also was able to gain more control over how Medicaid subsidy money is spent in exchange for a global cap on a substantial fraction of its Medicaid expenditures.

West Virginia offers alternative benefit packages that create incentives for beneficiaries to take responsibility for their own health and health care. Kentucky and Idaho are among other states with similar programs.  Patients receive additional benefits if they select a medical home, adhere to health improvement programs, keep and arrive on time for appointments, use the hospital emergency room for emergencies only, and comply with prescribed medications.

Utah fought for and received a waiver that allowed the states to scale back Medicaid’s excessively large benefit package to stretch the money to cover more citizens.

These are a few examples of the creative programs that states could develop if they weren’t forced to jump through Washington’s Mother-May-I Medicaid hoops to get approval to make even minor changes to their Medicaid programs.  

Lessons and Themes

While each state’s Medicaid program is unique, the examples discussed above each contain common themes that should guide policy-makers seeking to transform their state health systems – and avoid the pitfalls of Obamacare’s massive, bureaucratic expansion:

  • Customized Beneficiary Services:  Providing beneficiaries with a choice of coverage options can provide plans an incentive to tailor their benefit packages to best meet individuals’ needs.  Similar incentives promoting competition in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit helped keep that program’s cost more than 40% below original estimates.[31]
  • Coordinated and Preventive Care:  Several of the reform programs focus on providing individualized, coordinated services to beneficiaries – an improvement to the top-down, uncoordinated care model of old.  In many cases, preventive care interventions for Medicaid recipients suffering from chronic conditions can ultimately save money.
  • Personal Responsibility:  Cost-sharing can be an appropriate incentive, to encourage beneficiaries to take ownership of their health, and discourage costly practices, such as emergency room trips for routine care.  The fact that more than two-thirds of Healthy Indiana Plan participants consider their cost-sharing levels appropriate proves that even families of modest means are both willing and able to provide some financial contribution to their cost of care.
  • Home and Community-Based Services:  Several of the reform programs attempt to continue and accelerate the trend of providing long-term care in patients’ homes, rather than in more cumbersome and costly nursing home settings.
  • No New Federal Funds:  Most importantly, each of the reform projects discussed above neither seek nor require the massive new spending levels contemplated by an Obamacare expansion.  In many cases, the programs above were implemented successfully despite Washington’s interference, not because of it.

Conclusion

Functioning in their traditional role as laboratories of democracy, states have provided better solutions for policy-makers seeking to reform their Medicaid programs.  These solutions have expanded coverage, and improved the quality of care, even while reducing costs to taxpayers.  As the Obama administration denies states true flexibility when it comes to Obamacare’s costly Medicaid expansion, states have demonstrated that they can convert a modicum of leeway from Washington into maximum improvements for their citizens – and savings for taxpayers.

The analysis above shows that Chief Justice Roberts was right: states do have a choice when it comes to their Medicaid programs.  They can – and should – choose the options that will reform and revitalize their programs, rather than the massive and costly expansion of the Medicaid monolith included in Obamacare.

States must take the lead in insisting that Washington provide more flexibility over Medicaid spending so they can expand access to care without burdening taxpayers with significant new costs or burdening their citizens with a program that can be worse than being uninsured.

States can show that Medicaid can have a more efficient and effective service delivery system that enhances quality of care and outcomes.  Expanding Medicaid without a guarantee of flexibility would be a major missed opportunity for the states. If states join together, they have more leverage to demand true flexibility than if they try to gain leverage one by one.

 

NOTES

[1] NFIB v. Sebelius, June 28, 2012, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf, p. 52.

[2] Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Obamacare would expand coverage to 17 million individuals through Medicaid by 2022, while the Office of the Actuary at CMS estimated the Medicaid expansion would cover 25.9 million individuals by 2020.  See CBO, “Estimates for Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision,” July 24, 2012, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf, Table 1, p. 19, and Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “2011 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid,” March 16, 2012, http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/MedicaidReport2011.pdf, p. 30.

[3] Grace-Marie Turner and Avik Roy, “Twelve Reasons States Should Not Expand Medicaid,” Galen Institute, March 15, 2013, http://www.galen.org/topics/tennessee-should-block-medicaid-expansion/.

[4] Scott Gottlieb, “Medicaid Is Worse than No Coverage at All,” The Wall Street Journal March 10, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704758904576188280858303612.html.

[5] See, for instance, Joanna Bisgaier and Karin Rhodes, “Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance,” New England Journal of Medicine June 16, 2011, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1013285.

[6] Chris Conover, “Will Medicaid Expansion Create Jobs?,” Forbes, February 25, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2013/02/25/will-medicaid-expansion-create-jobs/.

[7] CMS Bulletin, “Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act: Premium Assistance,” March 29, 2013, http://medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/FAQ-03-29-13-Premium-Assistance.pdf.

[8] Lewin Group, “An Independent Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Global Waiver,” December 6, 2011, http://www.ohhs.ri.gov/documents/documents11/Lewin_report_12_6_11.pdf.

[9] Ibid., p. 40.

[10] Specifically, the report notes that the maintenance of effort requirements included in the “stimulus” (P.L. 111-5) and Obamacare (P.L. 111-148) “had a profound impact on the flexibility Rhode Island anticipated…The Special Terms and Conditions for the global waiver authorized Rhode Island to charge premiums of up to 5 percent…however, CMS prohibited Rhode Island from using this authority,” citing the maintenance of effort requirements.  Ibid., pp. 11-12.

[11] See, for instance, a 2010 Centers for Disease Control research brief finding Medicaid beneficiaries were nearly twice three times as likely as those with private insurance to visit the ER multiple times in one year.  Tamrya Caroll Garcia, Amy Bernstein, and Mary Ann Bush, “Emergency Department Visitors and Visits: Who Used the Emergency Room in 2007?” National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief No. 38, May 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db38.pdf.

[12] Timothy Lake, Vivian Byrd, and Seema Verma, “Healthy Indiana Plan: Lessons for Reform,” Mathematica Policy Research Issue Brief, January 2011, http://mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/health/healthyindianaplan_ib1.pdf.

[13] Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Healthy Indiana Plan 1115 Waiver Extension Application, February 13, 2013, http://www.in.gov/fssa/hip/files/HIP_WaiverforPosting.pdf, p. 18.

[14] Cited in Ibid.

[15] “Healthy Indiana Plan: Lessons for Reform.”

[16] Healthy Indiana Plan 1115 Waiver Extension Application, pp. 19, 6.

[17] “Healthy Indiana Plan: Lessons for Reform.”

[18] Milliman letter to Indiana Family and Social Services Administration regarding budget neutrality of Medicaid Section 1115 waiver, January 30, 2013, http://www.in.gov/fssa/hip/files/041115_Budget_Neutrality_Waiver_Renewal.pdf.

[19] Mitch Daniels, “We Good Europeans,” The Wall Street Journal March 26, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144362968408640.html.

[20] Frequently Asked Questions on Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Program, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, http://ahca.myflorida.com/medicaid/statewide_mc/pdf/FAQ_MC-SMMC_general.pdf.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Florida Agency for Health care Administration, Section 1115 waiver submission to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/1115/downloads/fl/fl-medicaid-reform-pa.pdf.

[23] Ibid., p. 16.

[24] A summary of the specific federal authorities Florida seeks to waive can be found on the state Agency for Health Care Administration website, http://ahca.myflorida.com/medicaid/statewide_mc/pdf/Summary_of_Federal_Authorities_01232013.pdf.

[25] “Florida Health Choices PLUS+: Creating a Stronger Marketplace for Better Health, More Choices, and Expanded Coverage,” Floriday House Majority Office, April 2013, http://myfloridahouse.gov/Handlers/LeagisDocumentRetriever.ashx?Leaf=housecontent/HouseMajorityOffice/Lists/Other%20Items/Attachments/6/Florida_Heath_Choices_Plus.pdf&Area=House.

[26] Available online at http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?PublicationType=Committees&CommitteeId=2738&Session=2013&DocumentType=Proposed%20Committee%20Bills%20%28PCBs%29&FileName=PCB%20SPPACA%2013-03.pdf.

[27] Congressional Budget Office, “How Many People Lack Health Insurance and for How Long?” May 2003, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4210/05-12-uninsured.pdf, Table 4, p. 11.  For a further discussion of the cohorts comprising the uninsured, see Chris Jacobs, “Deconstructing the Uninsured,” Republican Study Committee Policy Brief, August 26, 2008, http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pb_082608_uninsured%20analysis.pdf.

[28] See for instance Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon, “Crowd-Out Ten Years Later: Have Recent Public Insurance Expansions Crowded Out Private Insurance?” Journal of Health Economics, February 2008, http://economics.mit.edu/files/6422.  The study found that about three in five individuals enrolled in government health programs dropped their private coverage to do so.

[29] James Capretta, Michael Delly, Arlene Wohlgemuth, and John Davidson, “Save Texas Medicaid: A Proposal for Fundamental Reform,” Texas Public Policy Foundation, March 2013, http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2013-03-RR05-MedicaidBlockGrants-Final.pdf.

[30] Ibid., p. 10.

[31] Robert Moffit, “Medicare Drugs: Why Congress Should Reject Government Price Fixing,” The Heritage Foundation Issue Brief 3880, March 18, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/medicare-drugs-why-congress-should-reject-government-price-fixing. ­­­

Do’s and Don’ts of Improving State Medicaid Programs

A version of this document is available on the Galen Institute website.

Across the country, state legislatures are considering whether and how to implement Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.  Ten simple reasons illustrate why states should reject Obamacare’s government-centric expansion and instead develop their own innovative solutions.

Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion harms states

  • Medicaid is “Not a Jobs Program:”  Former Obama administration official Zeke Emanuel wrote in a New York Times op-ed that hospitals and other health providers should not view health programs as a never-ending government jobs program.  Research suggests tax increases needed to fund Medicaid expansion will destroy jobs, not create them.
  • Medicaid “Not Real Insurance:”  Medicaid’s problems with poor beneficiary access to physicians have been well documented.  One Michigan beneficiary said it best: “You feel so helpless thinking, something’s wrong with this child and I can’t even get her into a doctor….When we had real insurance, we would call and come in at the drop of a hat.”
  • Not True Flexibility:  Guidance recently issued by the Obama administration shows continued unwillingness to contemplate flexibility in Medicaid.  Washington continues to place limits on even modest cost-sharing for recipients to incentivize healthy behaviors.
  • “Bait and Switch” from Washington, Part I Given the significant Medicaid spending cuts President Obama himself previously proposed to rein in massive federal deficits, the high federal Medicaid matching rates included in Obamacare are unlikely to remain.
  • “Bait and Switch” from Washington, Part II:  States with premium assistance demonstrations now must ask permission from Washington to extend them beyond 2016.  HHS has shown little flexibility for states, and it could show even less after millions more Americans are enrolled in taxpayer-funded benefits.

True Reform: What states should do instead

  • Customized Beneficiary Services:  Providing beneficiaries with a choice of coverage options can provide plans an incentive to tailor their benefit packages to best meet individual needs.  Similar incentives promoting competition in the Medicare Part D drug benefit helped keep program cost more than 40% below estimates.
  • Coordinated and Preventive Care:  Reform programs in states as varied as Indiana, Rhode Island, and Florida focus on individualized, coordinated services to beneficiaries – an improvement on the top-down, uncoordinated care model of old.  In many cases, preventive care interventions for Medicaid recipients suffering from chronic conditions can ultimately save money.
  • Personal responsibility:  Cost-sharing can be an appropriate incentive to encourage recipients to take ownership of their health and discourage costly practices, such as ER visits for routine care.  More than two-thirds of participants in the Hoosier State’s Healthy Indiana Plan consider their cost-sharing levels appropriate, proving that families of modest means are willing and able to provide some financial contribution to their cost of care.
  • Home and Community-Based Services:  Providing long-term care in home settings, rather than in more costly nursing homes can improve quality and save taxpayers money.
  • No New Federal Funds:  Most importantly, innovative programs in Rhode Island, Indiana, Florida, and elsewhere neither seek nor require the massive new spending levels contemplated by an Obamacare expansion.

State Insurance Benefit Mandates

Background:  Since the 1960s, state legislatures have considered—and adopted—legislation requiring health insurance products sold within the state to cover various products and services.  These benefit mandates are frequently adopted at the behest of disease groups advocating for coverage of particular treatments (e.g. mammograms) or physician groups concerned that patients have access to specialists’ services (e.g. optometrists).

A recent survey by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance found that as of 2007, states had enacted a total of 1,961 mandates for benefits and services—an increase of 60 (more than one per state) when compared to the 2006 total.[1]  The number of state mandates varies from a low of 15 in Idaho to a high of 64 in Minnesota.  However, because employer-sponsored health insurance is pre-empted from state-based laws and regulations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), benefit mandates do not apply to employers who self-fund their health insurance plans; thus state mandates primarily affect policies purchased in the individual and small group markets.

Costs and Impact on Take-up Rates:  The cost and impact of benefit mandates on health insurance premiums have been the subject of several studies in recent years.  For instance, the Heritage Foundation prepared an analysis suggesting that each individual benefit mandate could raise the cost of health insurance premiums by $0.75 monthly.[2]  Although the cost of a single mandate appears small, the aggregate impact—particularly given the recent growth of benefit mandates nationwide—can be significant: For instance, Massachusetts’ 43 benefit mandates would raise the cost of health insurance by more than $30 monthly under the Heritage analysis.

In July, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts released its own study on the impact of state benefit mandates, which was compiled as a result of the health reform law enacted under Gov. Mitt Romney.  The report found that in 2004-05, spending within the Commonwealth on mandated benefits totaled $1.32 billion—or 12% of health insurance premiums—prior to the introduction of a prescription drug benefit mandate likely to increase premium costs further.[3]  Because some of these benefits (e.g. diabetes coverage) likely would have been provided even in the absence of the state mandate, the report calculated that the marginal costs of the mandates could range as high as $687 million—or more than 6% of health insurance premium costs.[4]  The report also noted that some benefit mandates, such as those requiring bone marrow transplants for breast cancer, are ineffective, in part because the mandated benefits no longer match the recommended standard of care, and went on to recommend an ongoing review of the necessity of mandated benefits.[5]

A further level of analysis on the impact of higher premium costs, specifically those associated with benefit mandates, on the number of uninsured Americans, finds some correlation between the costs related to benefit mandates and rising numbers of uninsured.  Some estimates suggest that every 1% increase in premium costs has a corresponding increase in the number of uninsured by approximately 200,000-300,000 individuals nationwide.[6]  Because rising costs are associated with the introduction of a specific new benefit, the price elasticity associated with the mandate will tend to vary based on the benefit’s perceived usefulness—for instance, a single 20-year-old would be more likely to drop coverage if an infertility benefit mandate increased premium costs than would a married couple trying to conceive.  However, based on the studies above, it is reasonable to say that likely several hundred thousand, and possibly a million or more, Americans could obtain coverage if unnecessary benefit mandates were eliminated—and millions more Americans currently with insurance could receive more cost-effective coverage.

Legislative Proposals:  Various legislative provisions introduced in current and prior Congresses attempt to reform state benefit mandates through a variety of mechanisms.  The Health Care Choice Act (H.R. 4460) by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) would permit individuals to purchase health insurance plans across state lines, which would give individuals living in states where benefit mandates have driven up the cost of insurance the opportunity to purchase more affordable policies.  The legislation could have the secondary benefit of encouraging states to avoid imposing new mandates and to re-think their current mandates, so as to make their policies more affordable and attractive to the citizens of their state—who otherwise may take the new opportunity to purchase coverage elsewhere.

Other options to reform state benefit mandates include Association Health Plans (AHPs) and Individual Membership Associations (IMAs), which would allow small businesses and individuals respectively the opportunity to band together to purchase health insurance.  In so doing, the associations would be exempted from state-based laws regarding mandated coverage of particular services or diseases.  Some conservatives may believe that these types of association plans may deliver value as a result of the pre-emption of the often costly benefit mandates.

A third option, first proposed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) in a 2004 Senate report and recently drafted into legislative language by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) as H.R. 6280, would require states to permit insurance carriers to offer mandate-free policies alongside their existing menu of coverage options.  As a result, consumers could choose whether to purchase a plan that offers richer coverage or a plan that might offer better value by targeting the type of benefits provided.  Some states, most recently Florida, have already taken steps in this line, passing legislation permitting lower-cost policies that may not offer the full menu of mandated benefits; Massachusetts offers such policies, but only to young adults aged 19-26.

Conclusion:  Although the types of benefit mandates imposed by states can vary from the duplicative (e.g. cancer coverage already provided by virtually all plans) to the costly (e.g. in vitro fertilization) to the frivolous (e.g. hair prosthesis), some conservatives may view them collectively as a failure of government.  In some respects, behavior surrounding state benefit mandates represents a case of moral hazard, whereby benefits (to particular disease or provider groups) are privatized, while costs—in the form of higher insurance premiums—are socialized among all payers.  Although some states have acted recently to study the cost effects of imposing so many benefit mandates, or to offer mandate-free or “mandate-lite” health insurance options to their citizens, the allure of appealing to a particular constituency group—as opposed to the interests of all individuals whose premiums will increase upon imposition of a mandate—often proves too difficult for policy makers to resist.

Although well-intentioned, some conservatives may view the groups who advocate for benefit mandates as operating from fundamentally flawed logic: that individuals should go without health insurance entirely rather than purchase coverage lacking the “consumer protection” of dozens of mandates.  In addition, some conservatives note that the prospect of increasing the number of uninsured through such methods may precipitate a “crisis” surrounding the uninsured, increasing calls for a government-run health system.  In short, many conservatives may believe individuals should have the “consumer protection” to purchase the insurance plan they desire—rather than the “protection” from being a consumer by a government which seeks to define their options, and raise the cost of health insurance in the process.

 

[1] Council for Affordable Health Insurance, “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2008” and “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007,” available online at http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf and http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/MandatesInTheStates2007.pdf, respectively (accessed July 19, 2008).

[2] Michael New, “The Effect of State Regulations on Health Insurance Premiums: A Revised Analysis,” (Washington, Heritage Center for Data Analysis Paper CDA06-04, July 25, 2006), available online at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/CDA_06-04.pdf (accessed July 19, 2008), p. 5.

[3] Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, “Comprehensive Review of Mandated Benefits in Massachusetts: Report to the Legislature,” (Boston, July 7, 2008), available online at http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dhcfp/r/pubs/mandates/comp_rev_mand_benefits.pdf (accessed July 19, 2008), p. 4.

[4] Ibid., pp. 5-6.

[5] Ibid., p. 6.

[6] See, for instance, Todd Gilmer and Richard Kronick, “It’s the Premiums, Stupid: Projections of the Uninsured through 2013,” Health Affairs Web Exclusive April 5, 2008, available online at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.143/DC1 (accessed July 19, 2008), and Government Accountability Office, Impact of Premium Increases on Number of Covered Individuals is Uncertain (Washington, Report GAO/HEHS-98-203R, June 11, 1999), available online at http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf2/160930.pdf (accessed July 19, 2008), pp. 3-4.