Weekly Newsletter: March 10, 2008

Democrat Budget Fails to Address Medicare’s Woes…

The concurrent budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 312), which Democrats will bring to the House floor this week, does not include provisions providing comprehensive Medicare reform. The budget includes reconciliation provisions instructing the Ways and Means Committee to reduce spending on mandatory programs within their jurisdiction—but by only $750 million over the next five years. An amendment offered during last week’s Budget Committee markup by RSC Chairman Hensarling, which offered reconciliation instructions to ensure that Congress addresses the funding warning issued by the Medicare trustees last year, was defeated on a party-line vote.

Many conservatives will be concerned that, with the Medicare trust funds projected to be exhausted in little more than a decade, the Democrats’ budget will make no substantive effort to address Medicare’s $74 trillion in unfunded liabilities. In addition, some conservatives may be concerned by press reports indicating that the Democrat leadership will use the reconciliation process to justify new spending proposals for health care, rather than using all savings achieved to reduce the deficit and improve Medicare’s long-term viability.

More information on the Medicare trigger—and the President’s proposals for entitlement reform—can be found here.

…And Increases Spending on SCHIP

The Democrat budget also includes a proposed $50 billion reserve fund to finance an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This reserve fund would be consistent with a bill (H.R. 3162) considered by the House last July, under which nearly two and a half million children would drop private health insurance coverage in order to join a government-financed program—including children in families with incomes of more than $80,000.

Most conservatives support the enrollment and funding of the SCHIP program for the populations for whom it was created. However, continued efforts to extend this government-financed program to wealthier children and families may give some conservatives concern. If Democrats wish to look out for America’s children, some conservatives might argue that the better way to help is to reform Medicare and Medicaid so that future generations will not be saddled with trillions of dollars of debt, not to work to expand public programs for wealthier families.

An RSC Policy Brief discussing Administration proposals on SCHIP can be found here.

Mental Health Parity Bill Passes House

A Top Ten list of conservative concerns about H.R. 1424 can be found here.

Votes on the motion to recommit and final passage can be found here: Motion to Recommit Final Passage

Article of Note: Silence on Medicare Reform

Last week, the New York Times highlighted the absence of plans by Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama to confront the fiscal entitlement crisis our country faces in the coming decade. Although a report issued last month by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that federal spending on health care will increase by 7.3% annually for the next decade, neither Democrat candidate has provided details on how to address the trillions of dollars of debt this additional spending will create.

The Times article notes that much of Medicare’s fiscal problem stems from the overall growth in health care costs. Several reports released in recent weeks have highlighted the need for measures to examine, and ultimately slow, excess cost growth within the health sphere. The RSC is preparing a policy brief summarizing these reports and offering some principles for controlling health costs using conservative, free-market solutions. By contrast, proposals by Sens. Clinton and Obama to control health costs contain a heavy emphasis on government-imposed price controls on insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

With the first Baby Boomer scheduled to become eligible for Medicare in fewer than three years, and the winner in November’s election likely to seek re-election, any potential President will have to address this crucial entitlement reform at some point during his (or her) intended term of office. Moreover, the $2 trillion added to America’s collective entitlement obligations every year that Congress and the President fail to take action provides a strong justification for immediate reform. Hopefully the Democratic contenders will embrace the opportunity to propose real, market-oriented solutions that control health care costs, or otherwise, as Robert Reischauer of the Urban Institute notes, “it will be difficult for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama to retain popular support for their plans once the details are supplied.”

Read the article here: New York Times: “About Those Health Care Plans by the Democrats…

Legislative Bulletin: H.R. 1424, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act

Order of Business:  The bill is reportedly scheduled to be considered on Wednesday, March 5th, subject to a likely structured rule.

Summary:  H.R. 1424 would amend the Internal Revenue Code, the Public Health Service Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to require equity in the provision of mental health disorder benefits for group health insurance plans that offer both mental health benefits and medical and surgical benefits.  Previously, the Mental Health Parity Act—first enacted in 1996, and extended in subsequent legislation until it lapsed in December 2007—required only that plans choosing to offer both mental health and medical and surgical benefits must have equal annual and lifetime limits on coverage for both types of treatments.  Specific details of the federal mandates in the bill include the following:

Treatment Limits and Beneficiary Financial Requirements:  H.R. 1424 would require group health plans to offer the same financial benefit structure for both mental and physical disorders.  The federal mandate would apply to overall coverage limits on treatment as well as deductibles, out-of-pocket limits, and similar beneficiary financial requirements.

Expansion of Definition:  The bill would expand the definition of “mental health benefits” subject to the federal mandate to include substance abuse and disorder treatments. (See Additional Background section below.)

Minimum Scope of Benefits:  H.R. 1424 would require all group health insurance plans offering mental health benefits to offer coverage for any mental health and substance-related disorder included in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  (See Additional Background section below.)

Out-of-Network Benefits:  The bill would mandate plans that offer out-of-network insurance coverage for medical and surgical benefits to provide out-of-network coverage for mental health benefits, and at the same benefit levels.  This provision exceeds the standards required by the Office of Personnel Management for insurance carriers participating in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP); plans offered through the federal program need only provide mental health parity with respect to in-network benefit packages.

Increased Cost Exemption:  H.R. 1424 would raise the level at which employers whose health insurance costs rise as a result of implementing mental health parity in benefits may claim an exemption from the federal mandate.  The bill would exempt employers whose costs due to mental health claims rise by more than 2% in the first year of implementation, and by more than 1% in subsequent years.  The more limited version of the Mental Health Parity Act first enacted in 1996 exempted employers whose claim costs rose 1%.  Employers with fewer than 50 workers would be exempt from federal mandates under the legislation.

Federal Pre-emption:  H.R. 1424 would not preclude states from imposing on employers who offer group health insurance coverage more stringent requirements with respect to “consumer protections, benefits, methods of access to benefits, rights, or remedies.”  This provision constitutes a significant variation from past federal policy with respect to employer-provided health insurance dating to ERISA’s enactment in 1974.  (See Additional Background section below.)

Random Federal Audits:  The bill would require the Department of Labor to conduct annual audits of a random sample of group health insurance plans to ensure compliance with the federal mandates included in H.R. 1424.

GAO Study:  The bill would require a study by the Government Accountability Office evaluating the law’s impact on the cost of health insurance coverage, access to mental health care, and related issues.

Medicaid Drug Rebate:  The bill would increase the rebate required of pharmaceutical companies offering single source (i.e. protected under federal patent laws) and innovator multiple source (i.e. formerly protected under federal patent law, but now subject to generic competition) pharmaceuticals in the Medicaid program from at least 15.1% of the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) to at least 20.1% of the AMP.  The increase would apply for the years 2009 through 2015.  (See Additional Background section below.)

Specialty Hospitals:  H.R. 1424 would impose additional restrictions on so-called specialty hospitals by limiting the “whole hospital” exemption against physician self-referral.  Specifically, the bill would only extend the exemption to facilities with a Medicare reimbursement arrangement in place at the time of the bill’s enactment, and generally prohibit facilities from expanding their total number of operating rooms or beds.  Facilities may be able to expand their number of beds by up to 50%, provided that a) the population within the area has grown at more than double the national average over a five-year period; b) the facility has an above-average rate of Medicaid admissions when compared to the statewide average; c) the facility is located in a state with average bed capacity below the national average; and d) average bed occupancy within the area is at least 80%.  The bill also imposes additional reporting and related requirements regarding the nature of physician ownership arrangements.  (See Additional Background section below.)

Additional Background on ERISA Pre-Emption:  The Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has served as the primary federal standard for the regulation of employee benefit plans since its enactment in September 1974 as Public Law 93-406.  One of its key provisions, Section 514 (29 U.S.C. 1144), states that ERISA “shall supersede any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan,” except in limited instances.  As Rep. John Dent (D-PA), then-Chairman of the House Labor Subcommittee and sponsor of the bill which became the ERISA statute, noted during debate on the conference report:

I wish to make note of what is to many the crowning achievement of this legislation, the reservation to federal authority the sole power to regulate the field of employee benefit plans.  With the pre-emption of the field, we round out the protection afforded participants by eliminating the threat of conflicting and inconsistent state and local regulation. [Emphasis added.]

The strong pre-emption provisions have been upheld by numerous federal courts since the enactment of ERISA more than 30 years ago.  In 2004, the Supreme Court in the case of Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila (542 U.S. 200) ruled that a Texas state law permitting lawsuits against managed care companies could not be enforced against plans provided by private employers due to ERISA’s pre-emption provisions and remedies already available under federal law.  More recently, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cited ERISA pre-emption as the basis for striking down Maryland’s so-called Wal-Mart bill, which attempted to enact a “pay-or-play” mandate on large employers by requiring them to contribute a percentage of payroll expenses to their employees’ health care.

Over more than three decades, ERISA pre-emption has permitted thousands of employers to offer group health insurance coverage to millions of workers nationwide without the fear of becoming bogged down in complex and conflicting health insurance regulations in the several states.  This system currently provides more than 177 million Americans—more than half the national population—with health insurance coverage, according to Census Bureau data.  If passed, H.R. 1424 would permit states to pass laws with more stringent consumer protections, and could subject group health insurance plans to those state laws, creating the first significant erosion of ERISA pre-emption since its enactment.

Additional Background on Scope of Mental Health Benefits:  H.R. 1424 would incorporate into federal statute the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the basis for which group health plans offer coverage for mental health conditions.  Specifically, the bill would require plans to cover any mental disorder listed in the most recent edition of the manual, currently in its fourth edition (DSM-IV).

A 1999 executive order signed by President Clinton incorporated DSM-IV into the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), beginning in January 2001.  However, the Office of Personnel Management requires FEHBP carriers to cover “all categories of…conditions” within DSM-IV, while H.R. 1424 requires overage of “any mental health condition”—a more expansive requirement for plans.  Moreover, plans offering coverage within FEHBP are permitted discretion to require an “authorized treatment plan” based on medical necessity—but are given no discretion to determine necessity under H.R. 1424.  The Office of Personnel Management has estimated that implementation of the executive order increased premium costs by 1.64% for fee-for-service plans participating in FEHBP.

The DSM-IV standards, first published in 1994 and revised slightly in 2000, include a wide variety of classifications for mental disorders, several of which are considered by some in the psychiatric community to have dubious value.  In addition, the number and breadth of declared psycho-sexual disorders included in the DSM have sparked controversy between homosexual activists and traditional values supporters.  Among the more troubling diagnoses incorporated into DSM-IV are:

  • Nightmare disorder;
  • Circadian rhythm sleep disorder (jet lag type);
  • Caffeine-induced sleep disorder;
  • Caffeine intoxication;
  • Substance-induced sexual dysfunction;
  • Gender identity disorder;
  • Transvestic fetishism; and
  • Pedophilia.

Under H.R. 1424, employers offering group coverage would be required to provide benefits related to these and similar diagnoses included in DSM-IV.

The expansive definitions of mental disorders included in DSM-IV have led to charges that psychiatric diagnoses have become politicized.  In response, the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the DSM guidebook, included the following explanation on its website:

Q:        Aren’t some of the diagnoses included in the DSM there for political reasons?

A:        Decisions to include a diagnosis in the DSM are based on a careful consideration of the research underlying the disorder.  This is not to say that decisions are made without regard to other considerations.  Scientific data cannot be interpreted in a vacuum.  Sociological and other considerations must also be taken into account.   For example, each proposed new diagnosis carries with it the risk of making a false positive diagnosis (i.e., making a diagnosis when no disorder is present).  Since false positives can never be completely eliminated, we must consider instead how to balance the advantages of including the diagnosis in the DSM (e.g., increased detection of a treatable disorder with consequent reduction in morbidity and cost to the patient, his or her family, and to society at large) against the risks of making a false positive diagnosis (e.g., risk of stigmatization, cost and potential morbidity of unnecessary treatment, etc.).  However, the overall driving force in the decision to include or exclude a potential diagnosis from the DSM is the availability of scientific data. [Emphasis added.][1]

The American Psychiatric Association is tentatively scheduled to publish the fifth version of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) in 2011 or 2012, and any new disorders included in the revised version will be included in the federal mandate under the provisions of H.R. 1424.

Additional Background on Specialty Hospitals:  The past few years have seen the significant growth of so-called specialty hospitals.  These facilities, which generally concentrate on one medical practice area (often cardiac or orthopedic care), are often able to provide higher-quality care than general hospitals due to their focused mission.  Critics of specialty hospitals claim that, by “cherry-picking” the best—and therefore most lucrative—candidates for surgical procedures, they siphon off revenues from general and community hospitals, threatening their future viability.

The ownership arrangements of many specialty hospitals have also been questioned.  While federal law against physician self-referral prohibits doctors from holding an ownership stake in a particular department of a hospital facility, the “whole hospital” exemption permits physicians to hold an ownership stake in an entire facility.  Because many specialty hospitals are physician-owned in whole or in part, some critics believe that physicians owning a stake in a specialty hospital may be inclined to perform additional tests and procedures on patients due to a stronger profit motive.

In July 2007, Section 651 of H.R. 3162, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act, proposed several modifications to the “whole hospital” exemption for physician self-referral.  Most notably, the bill applied the exemption only to those facilities with Medicare provider agreements in place prior to July 2007—excluding new specialty hospitals or other facilities, including those currently under construction, from protection under the self-referral statute—and prohibited existing facilities from expanding their number of operating rooms or beds.  While the bill passed the House by a 225-204 vote, the Senate has yet to take up the measure.

Amidst spiraling costs and uneven quality, some conservatives may believe that the health sector warrants more competition, not less: new entrants to introduce innovative techniques and practices improving the quality of care; greater transparency of both price and quality information, so patients can make rational choices about the nature of their treatment options; and a funding system that reduces where possible the distortionary effects of third-party payment and empowers consumers to take control of their health.  Viewed from this perspective, opposition to undue and onerous restrictions on the specialty hospitals that have driven innovation within health care may strike many conservatives as a return to first principles.

Additional Background on Medicaid Drug Rebates:  As part of a drug payment policy designed to ensure that Medicaid paid the “best price” available, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 included provisions requiring manufacturers of pharmaceuticals desiring to offer their products to Medicaid enrollees to enter into rebate agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).  As of 2003, over 550 manufacturers have entered into rebate agreements, which apply to all pharmaceuticals separately billed to Medicaid.  In 2005, states reported receiving $11.1 billion in federally required drug rebates, constituting 26% of all outpatient pharmaceutical spending.  In addition, many states have their own additional rebate policies in effect; in 2005, 22 states reported collecting an additional $1.3 billion in supplemental rebates.  However, a 2005 survey by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation reported that nearly half of states surveyed (17 of 37) do not return their rebates to Medicaid, choosing instead to apply rebates to the general fund to finance other state spending.[2]

In determining rebate levels, federal law establishes two classes of pharmaceuticals.  For single source drugs (those still under federal patent protection) and “innovator” multiple source drugs (those formerly marketed under a patent, but where generic competition now exists), rebate amounts are determined by comparing the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) to the “best price”—the lowest price offered by the manufacturer to any retailer, wholesaler, or other entity.  The basic rebate is equal to either 15.1% of the AMP or difference between the AMP and the “best price,” whichever greater.  Additional rebates for these drugs are required if their price rises faster than inflation, as measured by the consumer price index for urban areas.  For “non-innovator” multiple source (i.e. generic) drugs, rebates are equal to 11% of AMP; “best prices” are not considered, and there are no additional rebates linked to price inflation.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) made several changes related to the Medicaid rebate system, particularly with respect to reporting of prices used to compute the pharmaceutical rebates owed.  Specifically, DRA required states to report data regarding certain physician-administered outpatient pharmaceuticals, in an attempt to ensure that rebates for chemotherapy and other drugs administered in physician settings were properly paid.  In addition, the DRA required that, for manufacturers who both produce a brand-name drug and license another manufacturer to produce a generic version, that the manufacturer-reported price include the price of these “authorized generics.”  In its cost estimate for DRA, CBO scored these changes as generating $220 million in additional federal revenues over five years, and $720 million over ten years.

Additional Background on Senate Legislation:  On September 18, 2007, the Senate passed its version of the Mental Health Parity Act.  This legislation, S. 558, sponsored by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), contains significant variations when compared to H.R. 1424.  Specifically, the Senate-passed language:

  • Retains ERISA pre-emption for the large employers (those with more than 50 employees) subject to the law—states would not have the option of enacting more stringent and conflicting laws and regulations;
  • Remains silent on codifying classes of mental disorders—the language does not require group health plans to offer coverage for all disorders under DSM-IV;
  • Does not mandate an out-of-network coverage benefit—plans must offer out-of-network coverage only to the extent they do so for medical and surgical benefits, while the House bill mandates out-of-network coverage for all plans offering mental health benefits; and
  • Permits group health insurance plans to utilize medical management practices, including utilization review, authorization, medical necessity and appropriateness criteria, and use of network providers—the House bill includes no such “safe harbor” for plans.

While some conservatives may still have concerns with the mandates imposed by the Senate legislation and the way in which these mandates would increase health insurance premiums, many segments of the business community have embraced the Senate compromise as a reasonable attempt to achieve the goal of both bills without eroding ERISA pre-emption or imposing undue restrictions on benefit plan design.  Many of those same trade organizations are opposing H.R. 1424, as listed below, as a legislative over-reach that will impede their ability to offer quality coverage through group health insurance plans.

Committee Action:  On March 9, 2007, the bill was introduced and referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Education and Labor Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee.  On July 18, 2007, the Education and Labor Committee reported the bill to the full House by a vote of 33-9.  On September 26, 2007, the Ways and Means Committee reported the bill to the full House by a vote of 27-13.  On October 16, 2007, the Energy and Commerce Committee reported the bill to the full House by a vote of 32-13.

Possible Conservative Concerns:  Numerous aspects of this legislation may raise concerns for conservatives, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:

  • Increase Health Insurance Costs.  As noted below, CBO estimates that H.R. 1424 would impose mandates on private insurance companies totaling $3 billion annually by 2012.  These costs will ultimately be borne by employers offering health insurance and employees seeking to obtain coverage.  Moreover, by increasing the cost of health insurance, H.R. 1424 will lead directly to an increase in the number of uninsured Americans.
  • Private-Sector Mandates on Small and Large Businesses.  As detailed below, the bill contains multiple new federal mandates on the private sector, affecting the design and structure of health insurance plans.   Among other mandates, the bill would require plan sponsors to provide out-of-network benefits for mental health services if the sponsors provide out-of-network benefits for medical and surgical services, exceeding the standard mandated of insurance carriers participating in the FEHBP.
  • Decrease in Mental Health Coverage.  While the bill imposes several new federal mandates on those employers who choose to offer mental health coverage, there is nothing in H.R. 1424 that would impose a mental health mandate on all group health plans.  Thus H.R. 1424 could have the perverse effect of actually decreasing mental health coverage, by encouraging employers frustrated with the bill’s onerous burdens to drop mental health insurance altogether.
  • Intergovernmental Mandate.  The bill would pre-empt state laws governing mental health coverage that conflict with the bill—but would not pre-empt laws providing more stringent consumer protections for employees.  Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) notes that some state and local governments would face increased costs for health insurance provided to their employees.  However, as these higher costs would be in the form of increased insurance premiums borne by government entities, CBO does not consider these higher costs a direct intergovernmental mandate.
  • Violation of UMRA.  CBO estimates that the costs of the mandates to the private sector in the bill would be at least $1.3 billion in 2008, rising to $3 billion in 2012 and thus exceed the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or UMRA ($131 million in FY2007, adjusted annually for inflation).
  • Codification of Treatment Mandate for Health Plans.  H.R. 1424 would incorporate into federal law the DSM-IV classification definitions as the parameter of mental health treatment for health plans.  The broad parameters included in the DSM-IV categories will obligate employers to cover “disorders” such as “jet lag” and “caffeine intoxication.”  The DSM-IV standards incorporated into federal law would also require employers to cover a broad array of sexual “disorders” that many conservatives may find objectionable, as noted above.
  • Lack of Conscience Clause.  H.R. 1424 would subject all employers with over 50 employees—including faith-based organizations—to federal mandates to cover all diagnoses under DSM-IV.  The bill does not include an exemption for faith-based groups to exclude coverage of mental disorders, particularly psycho-sexual disorders, for which they have religious or moral objections.
  • Erode Federal Pre-emption for Employers under ERISA.  While H.R. 1424 does pre-empt state laws that conflict with the bill, it also explicitly permits additional state laws that provide more stringent consumer protections.  This provision could undo a history of strict federal pre-emption dating to ERISA’s enactment in 1974, creating a patchwork of laws across all 50 states with which major employers would have to comply.  Some employers could decide to drop group health insurance coverage altogether rather than face a potentially conflicting array of state mandates and regulations to which they could be subjected under H.R. 1424.
  • Lack of Medical Management Tools.  H.R. 1424 does not include language explicitly permitting group health plans to negotiate separate reimbursement rates or provider payment rates and delivery service systems for different benefits.  These tools would empower plans to utilize medical management practices in order to reduce claim costs.

  • Decreased Access to Pharmaceuticals for Medicaid Patients.  H.R. 1424 increases from 15.1% to 20.1% the minimum rebate amount which certain pharmaceutical manufacturers must pay to offer their drugs to patients within the Medicaid program.  These tightened government price controls may cause some manufacturers to leave the program altogether, resulting in the loss of available prescription drugs for low-income beneficiaries.
  • Restrictions on Specialty Hospitals.  The bill would limit the “whole hospital” exemption under physician self-referral laws, such that any new specialty hospital—including those currently under development or construction—would not be eligible for the self-referral exemption, and any existing specialty hospital would be unable to expand its facilities, except under very limited circumstances.  Given the advances which several specialty hospitals have made in increasing quality of care and decreasing patient infection rates, these additional restrictions may impede the development of new innovations within the health care industry.
  • Budgetary Gimmick.  In order to comply with PAYGO rules, H.R. 1424 would rely upon an increase in the Medicaid rebate for pharmaceuticals lasting from 2009 through 2015.  The fact that the rebate levels are scheduled to increase and then return to current levels suggests that the legislative change proposed has as its primary motive the financing of the costs associated with an expansion of mental health parity.  Some conservatives may believe this temporary increase violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the PAYGO requirement under House rules.

Administration Position:  Although the Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) was not available at press time, reports indicate that the SAP will strongly oppose the legislation; a veto threat is possible but not certain.  In September 2007, Labor Secretary Chao and HHS Secretary Leavitt wrote to the Senate HELP Committee expressing support for the Senate mental health legislation (S. 558), and stating “concern” with the bill introduced in the House (H.R. 1424).

Cost to Taxpayers:  A final score of the substitute bill presented to the Rules Committee was not available at press time.  However, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of the bill as marked up before the Ways and Means Committee, H.R. 1424 would cost the federal government nearly $4 billion over ten years.  Direct federal outlays would increase by $820 million through increased Medicaid costs.  In addition, federal revenues would decline by more than $3.1 billion due to increases in the cost of health insurance, as employees with group coverage would exclude more of their income from payroll and income taxes.

The bill proposes to offset the costs outlined above by increasing the rebate rate required of drug manufacturers participating in the Medicaid program with respect to certain classes of pharmaceuticals.  In addition, the bill places additional restrictions on physician-owned specialty hospitals.  In July 2007, CBO scored similar provisions included in H.R. 3162, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act as saving $3.5 billion over ten years by directing more patients from specialty hospitals and to general hospitals, due to CBO’s belief that such a transition would result in overall savings to Medicare based on lower utilization rates for outpatient services and related reimbursement changes.  However, as noted previously, such savings may not be realized.

Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government?:  Yes, the bill would authorize the Department of Labor to conduct random audits of plan to ensure they are in compliance with the bill’s requirements, which according to CBO would require estimated appropriations of $330 million over ten years.

Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates?:  Yes, the bill would impose significant new mandates on private insurance carriers (and large employers who self-insure their workers) with respect to the structure and design of their benefit packages.  CBO estimates that the direct costs of the private-sector mandates would total $1.3 billion in 2008, rising to $3 billion in 2012, significantly in excess of the annual threshold ($131 million in 2007, adjusted for inflation) established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

In addition, the bill would also impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined by UMRA by pre-empting some state laws in conflict with the bill, but CBO estimates that this mandate would impose no significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

However, costs to state, local, and tribal governments would increase under the bill, for two reasons.  First, the CBO cost estimate indicates that state spending for Medicaid would increase by $235 million between 2008-2012.  Second, while state, local, and tribal governments that self-insure their workers would be able to opt-out of H.R. 1424’s federal mandates, some governments that fully insure their workers (i.e. purchase coverage through an insurance carrier, as opposed to paying benefits directly) would see their costs rise under the legislation.  CBO estimates that the bill would increase state, local, and tribal expenditures by $10 million in 2008, rising to $155 million by 2012.  However, because these increased costs result from mandate costs initially borne by the private sector and passed on to the governments while purchasing insurance, CBO did not consider them intergovernmental mandates as such.

Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?:  The Education and Labor Committee, in House Report 110-374, Part I, asserts that, “H.R. 1424 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.”

Constitutional Authority:  The Education and Labor Committee, in House Report 110-374, Part I, cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 (the congressional power to provide for the general welfare of the United States) and 3 (the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce). (emphasis added)

Outside Organizations:  The following organizations are opposing H.R. 1424:

  • Aetna;
  • American Association of Physicians and Surgeons;
  • American Benefits Council;
  • America’s Health Insurance Plans;
  • Assurant;
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield Association;
  • CIGNA;
  • Concerned Women of America (*potential key vote);
  • Family Research Council (*potential key vote);
  • National Association of Health Underwriters;
  • National Association of Manufacturers (*key vote);
  • National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (*key vote);
  • National Business Group on Health;
  • National Restaurant Association;
  • National Retail Federation (*key vote);
  • Retail Industry Leaders Association;
  • Society for Human Resource Management;
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce (*key vote).

 

 

[1] Available at http://www.dsmivtr.org/2-1faqs.cfm (accessed February 21, 2008).

[2] Kaiser Family Foundation, State Medicaid Outpatient Prescription Drug Policies: Findings from a National Survey, 2005 Update, available online at http://kff.org/medicaid/7381.cfm (accessed March 3, 2008).

SCHIP Proposals in Fiscal Year 2009 Budget

Summary:  In submitting his Fiscal Year 2009 Budget request to Congress, President Bush proposed a number of changes to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  As part of this package, the Administration requested a $19.7 billion increase in federal funding for SCHIP over the next five years.

Background:  The State Children’s Health Insurance Program, established under the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, is a state-federal partnership originally designed to provide low-income children with health insurance—specifically, those children under age 19 from families with incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), or approximately $40,000 for a family of four.  States may implement SCHIP by expanding Medicaid and/or creating a new state SCHIP program.  SCHIP received nearly $40 billion in funding over ten years as part of BBA, and legislation recently passed by Congress in December (P.L. 110-173) extended the program through March 2009 while providing additional SCHIP funds for states.

Budget Funding Proposal:  The budget proposes an additional $2.2 billion in SCHIP spending for Fiscal Year 2009, and $19.7 billion over the five year period.  The budget includes outreach grants of $50 million in 2009, and $100 million annually for the four succeeding years, for state and local governments as well as community-based organizations to engage in activities designed to increase enrollment of eligible children.

These funding levels significantly exceed the approximately $5 billion in increased funding proposed by the President in his Fiscal Year 2008 budget last year.  The proposal also exceeds the $1.8 billion in proposed Medicaid savings in Fiscal Year 2009 and $17.4 billion over the next five years achieved by realigning and simplifying the federal matching percentage for various administrative and family planning services, among other proposed changes.

Proposed SCHIP Enrollment Levels:  The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Fiscal Year 2009 Budget in Brief document notes that CMS exceeded its 2005 goal of enrolling five million children in the SCHIP program by more than a million children.  During FY2006, 4.0 million children on average were enrolled in SCHIP during any given month, and 6.6 million children were enrolled at any time during the year.

In arriving at a top-line budget number for its SCHIP proposal, the budget document also sets assumptions for future year enrollment levels.  The proposal notes the fact that the $19 billion increase in funding proposed by the Administration would fund an average of 5.6 million children in SCHIP per month, and nearly nine million children at some point over the course of a year—both of which constitute increases of nearly a third over 2006 levels.  Much of the additional enrollment and spending would stem from the outreach efforts as a result of the $450 million in grants proposed as part of the Cover the Kids initiative.

The significant increases in enrollment proposed that would result from the Administration’s higher budget request seem to be inconsistent with another document commissioned by HHS to study the number of uninsured children.  In that report, two researchers from the Urban Institute found that in 2003-2004, only 689,000 uninsured children in families with incomes under 200% FPL were eligible for, but not enrolled in, SCHIP coverage.  During the debate over SCHIP’s reauthorization last year, Administration officials utilized these data to reject calls from Congressional Democrats for $35-50 billion in increased SCHIP funding as unnecessary to fund health insurance for all targeted populations.

Focus on Originally Targeted Populations.  The budget notes a guidance letter issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on August 17, 2007 designed to prevent children from dropping private insurance coverage in order to join the government-funded SCHIP—a phenomenon commonly referred to as “crowd-out.”  The letter provided several criteria for states seeking to cover children in families with incomes above 250% FPL, including a one-year waiting period of uninsurance for individuals seeking coverage and assurance that the state has enrolled 95% of children below 200% of FPL who are eligible for coverage through Medicaid or SCHIP.  The letter, which is consistent with the Administration’s stated policy of targeting federal assistance to the low-income children for whom SCHIP was originally created, advised that CMS could pursue corrective action against states that have not worked to implement the guidance within 12 months (i.e. by August 2008).  The budget proposes legislation to extend this standard to any state wishing to expand coverage beyond 200% of FPL—the level below which states were supposed to target their SCHIP coverage, according to the original BBA provisions.

In addition, the budget would tighten SCHIP eligibility by clarifying the definition of income.  This proposal would eliminate the general “income disregard” system that has caused concern for many conservatives by enabling some states to extend government-financed SCHIP coverage to children in families making above 250-300% FPL ($50,000-$60,000 for a family of four).  However, states may still create “income disregards” around specific items (e.g. food, housing, etc.).

Coverage for Adults.  While the Administration’s budget proposes to transition adults out of SCHIP, it also proposes to transition adults into Medicaid coverage.  Although the federal matching percentage is slightly lower for Medicaid than for SCHIP, some conservatives may remain concerned that the budget’s proposed transition out of a program intended for low-income children belies the fact that these adults will remain dependent on public health insurance coverage.  Moreover, this proposal echoes language in the Senate SCHIP “compromise,” which the Administration twice vetoed (H.R. 976, H.R. 3963) last year.

Conclusion:  Most conservatives support enrollment and funding of the SCHIP program for the populations for whom the SCHIP program was created.  That is why in December the House passed, by a 411—3 vote, legislation reauthorizing and extending the SCHIP program through March 2009.  That legislation included an additional $800 million in funding for states to ensure that all currently eligible children will continue to have access to state-based SCHIP coverage.

While the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget includes several reasonable proposals to ensure that SCHIP funds are targeted toward low-income children, the significant increases in proposed funding levels may give some conservatives pause.  A study funded by the Department of Health and Human Services itself confirms the impossibility of enrolling more than 1.5 million new children to enroll in SCHIP, given current eligibility guidelines.  Therefore, it is an open question whether the nearly fourfold proposed increase in SCHIP funding—coupled with $450 million in outreach grants to states, localities, and community organizations—will only serve to encourage states to expand government-funded health insurance under the aegis of covering uninsured children.

President’s Medicare “Trigger” Proposals

Background:  Title VIII of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) includes provisions requiring the President to submit legislation within 15 calendar days of his annual budget submission in the event of a funding warning being issued by the Medicare trustees.  Because the trustees last April submitted their second consecutive warning that Medicare is projected to claim a growing share of general revenues within the next seven years, the President put forward his proposals to address the pending funding shortfall.  Under provisions established in statute, the legislative proposals will be introduced by the House Majority and Minority Leaders on the President’s behalf within three legislative days.

During the conference committee’s consideration of MMA, the funding warning mechanism was included at the behest of the Republican Study Committee as one device to help alleviate conservatives’ concerns about Medicare’s long-term solvency and ensure that Medicare’s claims on general budgetary revenues would not overwhelm either other federal budgetary priorities or the national debt.  By providing “fast-track” procedures for considering bills to improve the program’s solvency, the Medicare trigger also provides conservatives with another opportunity to examine more fundamental reforms to the way seniors’ health care is financed and delivered.

Summary of Proposal:  The Administration’s legislative proposal to address the “trigger” contains two titles.  The first title puts forward suggestions to make the Medicare purchasing system more cost-effective from a budgetary standpoint.  The second incorporates liability reforms that will reduce Medicare expenditures, as well as additional means-testing proposals that will increase Medicare revenues by raising premiums on wealthy seniors.  A preliminary summary of the legislation follows:

Value-based Purchasing:  This concept, also known as “pay-for-performance,” would vastly expand the federal government’s role in health care by adjusting physician and provider reimbursement levels to reflect successful patient outcomes on a risk-adjusted basis.  The proposed legislative package would provide for greater transparency of price and quality measures, and would further authorize the Secretary to take steps to adjust reimbursement levels in order to purchase care from those providers which provide the greatest value to beneficiaries and the Medicare program.  The legislation also requires the Secretary to make high-deductible health plans available in the Medicare program, and provide a transition for individuals not yet enrolled in Medicare who own Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

While policy-makers of all political stripes believe in providing consumers with additional price and quality transparency information, the further step of tying Medicare reimbursement levels crafted by federal bureaucrats to either process or outcome measures could prove much more problematic.  Although its advocates believe pay-for-performance can achieve significant budgetary savings, existing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) models have failed to realize any measurable impact on future Medicare expenditures.  Additionally, some conservatives may be concerned that this methodology would deepen the government’s role in health care by altering the fundamental doctor-patient relationship, leading to a more intrusive federal bureaucracy dictating the terms of patient care.

Medical Liability Reform: This proposal would help bring down health spending both within and outside Medicare by helping to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and providing reasonable levels of compensation to victims of medical malpractice.  Provisions of the bill include a three-year statute of limitations, a cap on non-economic damages of $250,000, and reasonable limits on attorney contingency fees charged to successful claimants.

In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office scored a similar liability reform bill passed by the House (H.R. 5) as lowering Medicare spending by $11.2 billion over a ten-year period.  While CBO staff have indicated that state liability reforms in the intervening time have reduced the savings level below the baseline for federal liability reform, savings from passage of the President’s proposal would likely still generate several billion dollars in savings to Medicare.

Means Testing:  The legislation proposes to establish an income-related Part D premium consistent with the Part B “means testing” included in Title VIII of the Medicare Modernization Act.  The proposal—which was included in the Fiscal Year 2009 budget—would achieve savings of $3.2 billion over five years.  The RSC has previously included similar proposals in its budget documents as one way to constrain costs and ensure consistency between a Part B benefit that is currently means-tested and a Part D benefit that is not.

Other Reform Options:  The legislative package advanced by the Administration comes on the heels of a Fiscal Year 2009 budget that proposed $178 billion in Medicare savings over the next five years, largely through adjustments to provider reimbursements.  In addition to the various proposals put forward by the Administration and described above, the opportunity afforded by the trigger could be used to advance other comprehensive proposals to reform Medicare, which could include:

Premium Support:  This model would convert Medicare into a system similar to the Federal Employees Benefit Health Plan (FEHBP), in which beneficiaries would receive a defined contribution from Medicare to purchase a health plan of their choosing.  Previously incorporated into alternative RSC budget proposals, a premium support plan would provide a level playing field between traditional Medicare and private insurance plans, providing comprehensive reform, while confining the growth of Medicare spending to the annual statutory raise in the defined contribution limit, thus ensuring long-term fiscal stability.

Restructure Cost-Sharing Requirements:  This concept would restructure the existing system of deductibles, co-payments, and shared costs, which currently can vary based on the type of service provided.  Additionally, Medicare currently lacks a catastrophic cap on beneficiary cost-sharing, leading some seniors to purchase Medigap policies that insulate beneficiaries from deductibles and co-payments and therefore provide little incentive to contain health spending.  Reforms in this area would rationalize the current system, generating budgetary savings and reducing the growth of health spending.

Increase Medicare Part B Premium:  The RSC has previously proposed increasing the Part B premium from 25% to 50% of total Medicare Part B costs, consistent with the original goal of the program.  This concept would not impact low-income seniors, as Medicaid pays Medicare premiums for individuals with incomes under 120% of the federal poverty level.

Bipartisan Commission:  This proposal would provide an expedited mechanism requiring Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on the recommendations of a bipartisan commission examining ways to reform Medicare and other federal entitlements.

Sequestration Mechanism: This proposal would cap the growth of overall Medicare spending levels, and provide adjustments in benefit structures in the event that spending exceeded statutory levels.  The budget submission to Congress did include the proposal that physician payments be reduced 0.4% for every year in which general tax revenues cover more than 45% of Medicare costs—the level at which the Medicare Modernization Act required that a funding warning be issued, and action taken by Congress.  The Administration proposal is designed to provide Congress with an impetus to embrace comprehensive entitlement reform by requiring across-the-board cuts absent pre-emptive legislative action.

Conclusion: The Medicare funding warning issued by the trustees last year provides an opportunity to re-assess the program’s structure and finance.  While competition among drug companies has ensured that expenditures for the MMA’s prescription drug benefit remain below the bill’s original estimates, introduction of pharmaceutical coverage has dramatically increased the overall growth of health care costs within the Medicare program, leading to the trustees’ funding warning.  The confluence of these two events should prompt Congress to consider the ways in which competition could be used to reduce the growth of overall Medicare costs, similar to the way in which the market for pharmaceutical coverage reduced the estimated cost of the Part D prescription drug benefit.

The Administration has put forward two separate proposals—the first in its budget submission to Congress last week, the second as part of its formal “trigger” submission this week—to address Medicare’s long-term solvency issues and begin a process of comprehensive reform.  Many conservatives are likely to view the President’s proposals as a positive first step in the discussions about ways to curb soaring entitlements, while considering additional proposals described above to advance the discussion further and to ensure Medicare’s long-term fiscal stability.

Health Care Proposals in Fiscal Year 2009 Budget

Summary:  In submitting his Fiscal Year 2009 Budget request to Congress, President Bush proposed a number of health-related changes that would achieve budgetary savings to both mandatory and discretionary spending.  As part of this package, the Administration has proposed a package that would reduce the growth of Medicare spending from 7.2% to 5.0% to meet requirements under the Medicare Modernization Act.

Mandatory Spending—Medicaid/SCHIP:

The budget proposal includes $1.8 billion in Medicaid savings in Fiscal Year 2009 and $17.4 billion over the next five years.  Budgetary savings would be achieved by realigning reimbursement rates for family planning services at the statutory Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate ($3.3 billion in savings over five years), and by aligning reimbursement rates for all administrative services and case management at 50% (total $6.6 billion in savings over the five-year window).  Additional savings over the next five years would be achieved through adjustments to pharmacy reimbursements ($1.1 billion), asset verification ($1.2 billion), and cost allocation ($1.77 billion).

The budget proposes an additional $2.2 billion in SCHIP spending for Fiscal Year 2009, and $19.7 billion over the five year period.  The budget includes outreach grants of $50 million in 2009, and $100 million annually in subsequent years, for state and local governments as well as community-based organizations to engage in activities designed to increase enrollment of eligible children.  Lastly, the budget proposes to simplify SCHIP eligibility by clarifying the definition of income, eliminating the “income disregard” system that has been a source of concern among many conservatives.

Mandatory Spending—Medicare:

The budget includes several proposals to reduce the overall growth in Medicare spending.  Overall, Medicare funding would fall $178 billion below the baseline over the next five years.  These proposals would not constitute overall “cuts” to the Medicare program, but would instead reduce its growth from 7.2% to 5.0%.  Highlights of the budget submission include the following:

Provider Adjustments: The Administration proposal would freeze payment rates for hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, long-term care and outpatient hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health providers through Fiscal Year 2011, and provide a –0.65% annual market basket update thereafter, saving $112.93 billion over five years.  The savings derived from flat-level payments would not mean that providers would not continue to receive increased reimbursements from the federal government, as the level, number, and intensity of services provided would still continue to grow.

Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments: Medicare DSH payments, which compensate hospitals that serve large numbers of low-income individuals, would be reduced by 30% over two years, saving $20.7 billion over five years.  This modest reduction in payments to hospitals would recognize the significantly enhanced benefits provided to seniors, particularly those with low incomes, as part of the Medicare Modernization Act.

Medical Education: The budget would eliminate duplicate Indirect Medical Education (IME) payments made to hospitals on behalf of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, and would reduce the IME add-on by 60% over the next three years, saving a total of $21.75 billion over five years.

Means Testing:  The budget proposes to end annual indexing of income-related Part B premiums and establish an income-related Part D premium consistent with the Part B “means testing” included in Title VIII of the Medicare Modernization Act.  The proposals would achieve total savings of $5.75 billion over five years.  The RSC has previously included similar proposals in its budget documents as one way to constrain costs and ensure consistency between a Part B benefit that is currently means-tested and a Part D benefit that is not.

Other Savings:  Additional savings over the five year budget window would come from a reduction in the rental period for oxygen equipment ($3 billion), extending Medicare Secondary Payor for the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program from 30 to 60 months ($1.1 billion), eliminating bad debt payments over four years ($8.5 billion), and other regulatory and administrative actions ($4.7 billion).

Medicare Funding Trigger

Concurrent with the budget submission, the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) requires the President to submit to Congress within 15 days a proposal to remedy the Medicare “excess general revenue Medicare funding” warning announced by the Medicare trustees last spring.  In addition to the savings package described above, the opportunity afforded by the trigger could be used to advance more comprehensive proposals, which could include:

Premium Support: This model would convert Medicare into a system similar to the Federal Employees Benefit Health Plan (FEHBP), in which beneficiaries would receive a defined contribution from Medicare to purchase a health plan of their choosing.  Previously incorporated into alternative RSC budget proposals, a premium support plan would provide a level playing field between traditional Medicare and private insurance plans, providing comprehensive reform, while confining the growth of Medicare spending to the annual statutory raise in the defined contribution limit, thus ensuring long-term fiscal stability.

Restructure Cost-Sharing Requirements:  This concept would restructure the existing system of deductibles, co-payments, and shared costs, which currently can vary based on the type of service provided.  Additionally, Medicare currently lacks a catastrophic cap on beneficiary cost-sharing, leading some seniors to purchase Medigap policies that insulate beneficiaries from deductibles and co-payments and therefore provide little incentive to contain health spending.  Reforms in this area would rationalize the current system, generating budgetary savings and reducing the growth of health spending.

Increase Medicare Part B Premium:  The RSC has previously proposed increasing the Part B premium from 25% to 50% of total Medicare Part B costs, consistent with the original goal of the program.  This concept would not impact low-income seniors, as Medicaid pays Medicare premiums for individuals with incomes under 120% of the federal poverty level.

Medical Liability Reform: This proposal would help bring down health spending both within and outside Medicare by helping to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and providing reasonable levels of compensation to victims of medical malpractice.  In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office scored a liability reform bill (H.R. 5) as lowering Medicare spending by $11.2 billion over a ten-year period.

Bipartisan Commission:  This proposal would provide an expedited mechanism requiring Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on the recommendations of a bipartisan commission examining ways to reform Medicare and other federal entitlements.

Value-based Purchasing:  This concept, also known as “pay-for-performance,” would seek to adjust physician and provider reimbursement levels to reflect successful patient outcomes on a risk-adjusted basis.  While advocates believe pay-for-performance can yet achieve the significant budgetary savings not present in existing Congressional Budget Office models, some conservatives may be concerned that this methodology would deepen the government’s role in health care by altering the fundamental doctor-patient relationship.

Sequestration Mechanism: This proposal would cap the growth of overall Medicare spending levels, and provide adjustments in benefit structures in the event that spending exceeded statutory levels.  The budget submission to Congress did include the proposal that physician payments be reduced 0.4% for every year in which general tax revenues cover more than 45% of Medicare costs—the level at which the Medicare Modernization Act required that a funding warning be issued, and action taken by Congress.  The Administration proposal is designed to provide Congress with an impetus to embrace comprehensive entitlement reform by requiring across-the-board cuts absent pre-emptive legislative action.

Discretionary Proposals:  Overall, the President’s proposed discretionary budget for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is $68.5 billion, $1.7 billion less than last year.  Preliminary highlights of funding levels on health programs include the following:

Centers for Disease Control (CDC): The proposal reduces overall spending by $412 million from current year levels.  Significant reductions within the CDC account include a proposed $111 million reduction for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and an $83 million reduction in the World Trade Center screening and treatment program.

Earmarks: The budget proposes $451 million in savings by eliminating earmarked projects from the HHS budget.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The budget provides a $130 million increase for FDA over Fiscal Year 2008 levels.  More than half ($68 million) of the proposed increase comes from additional resources for drug and biologic safety programs, with an additional $33 million increase in the food safety budget.

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA): A total of nearly $1 billion in reductions in the HRSA account comes from several proposed sources—grants to train nurses and health professionals (reduced by $240 million); training doctors at children’s hospitals (eliminated, saving $302 million); rural health programs (reduced by $150 million); and public health buildings and projects (eliminated, saving $304 million).  Reductions in the rural health and health training accounts have previously been proposed in previous RSC budget documents.  Since that time, reconciliation legislation passed last September (P.L. 110-84) provided student loan forgiveness to public health workers, raising additional questions about the duplicative nature of the HRSA-funded grant programs.

National Institutes of Health (NIH): The National Institutes of Health would receive flat-level funding from Fiscal Year 2008, $29.5 billion in total, after years of substantial increases.  Funding for most institutes within NIH would likewise remain at constant levels for the upcoming Fiscal Year.

Conclusion: The Administration’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget includes several reasonable proposals to slow the growth of health spending and thereby help return federal entitlements to a more sustainable trajectory.  Such measures are needed urgently, as Medicare faces $34.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years, according to the Government Accountability Office.  The need for immediate action is great: the first Baby Boomer becomes eligible for Medicare in 2011, and every year that Congress does not address unfunded entitlement obligations, their size grows an additional $2 trillion, according to Comptroller General David Walker.  Some conservatives may believe that these measures proposed by the Administration to constrain reimbursements to providers, while helpful, can constitute the starting point for a comprehensive discussion about entitlement reform.

Question and Answer: SCHIP Legislation

The House will soon be faced with a vote to override the President’s veto on H.R. 3963, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, legislation which would reauthorize and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), with several tax increases designed to partially offset the bill’s costs.

Does H.R. 3963 increase the scope of the SCHIP program?

Yes.  Under current law, states can cover families earning up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or $41,300 for a family of four in 2007 or those at 50% above Medicaid eligibility.  As of 2010, H.R. 3963 increases the eligibility limit to 300% of FPL or $61,950 for a family of four while continuing the current authority for states to define and disregard (i.e. ignore) income.  As a result, H.R. 3963 places no practical limit on SCHIP eligibility since states can always manipulate the definition of income to expand coverage.  In addition, Section 116(g) of the bill overturns CMS’s current policy of requiring states to ensure that 95% of the eligible children in their state below 250% of FPL are enrolled before expanding coverage to higher incomes.

Does H.R. 3963’s increased spending violate the spirit of PAYGO?

Yes.  H.R. 3963 provides $35.4 billion over five years and $71.5 billion over ten years in new mandatory spending.  This new spending is only partially offset by tax increases on cigarettes of 61 cents to $1 per pack, and a cigar tax up to $3 per cigar, supposedly (see below) generating $35.5 billion over five years and $71.7 billion over ten years.  However, this CBO score overlooks a major gimmick which the bill employs to lower its costs.  The bill dramatically lowers the SCHIP funding in the fifth year by 80%, from $13.75 billion in the first six months to $1.75 billion.  In all likelihood, such a reduction will never take effect, which would make this an effort to generate unrealistic savings in order to artificially comply with PAYGO rules.

Does H.R. 3963 raise taxes?

Yes.  H.R. 3963 increases the cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack, and the cigar tax up to $3 per cigar.  Some conservatives may be concerned that the bill increases taxes on low-income individuals in order to pay for the expansion of SCHIP, which is designed to assist low-income families.  In addition, this revenue source is constantly declining as fewer and fewer individuals begin to smoke, since placing a tax on cigarettes will likely deter sales, leading some to question the efficacy of the offset.  According a study by the Heritage Foundation, “To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund SCHIP expansion through such a tax would require 22.4 million new smokers by 2017.”

Will H.R. 3963 decrease private insurance participation in the market?

Yes.  Expanding SCHIP will generate a substantial shift away from the private health insurance market, by encouraging more and more children to obtain health care coverage from the federal government.  According to CBO, under H.R. 3963, two million children will shift from receiving private health insurance to government health insurance.  This means that they may get worse health care service and become increasingly dependent on the federal government.  In addition, as H.R. 3963 begins to reduce SCHIP funding in 2012, some note that states may shift these children who would be newly eligible for a government program into Medicaid.

Would H.R. 3963 bar illegal immigrants from receiving benefits?

No.  While H.R. 3963 states that “nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents,” the bill actually weakens existing law by removing the documentation requests under the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), specifically the burden that citizens and nationals provide documentation proving their citizenship in order to be covered under Medicaid and SCHIP.  Instead, the bill would require that a name and Social Security number be provided as documentation of legal status to acquire coverage and that those names and Social Security numbers be submitted to the Secretary to be checked for validity.    It is unclear what substantive changes were made to the original bill the President vetoed (HR 976) beyond the cosmetic with regard to citizenship certification.  Some conservatives may remain concerned that a Social Security number and name are not sufficient for proof of citizenship.  For instance, according to a recent letter from Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue, a Social Security number would not keep someone from fraudulently receiving coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP (if they claimed they were someone they were not).

Does H.R. 3963 contain earmarks?

Yes.  H.R. 3963 contains at least three authorizing earmarks.  First, the bill disregards “extraordinary employer pensions” as income.  According to CMS, only one state would fall into this category—Michigan, due to the presence of many auto manufacturers.  In addition, the bill sets the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotments for Tennessee at $30 million a year beginning in FY 2008, and sets the DSH allotment increases for Hawaii beginning in FY 2009 and thereafter as the allotments for low DSH states.

Would H.R. 3963 encourage additional SCHIP spending?

Yes.  H.R. 3963 shortens from three to two years the amount of time a state has to spend its annual SCHIP allotment.  Under current law, states are given three years to spend each year’s original allotment, and at the end of the three-year period, any unused funds are redistributed to states that have exhausted their allotment or created a “shortfall,” i.e. commitments beyond the funding available.  In addition, the bill establishes a process through which any unspent funds would be redistributed to any states with a shortfall.  Some conservatives may be concerned that this process provides incentives both for states to spend their allotment quickly and to extend their programs beyond their regular allotments into shortfall, so as to be relieved by the unspent funds of other states.

Do conservatives support the SCHIP program?

Most conservatives support enrollment and funding of the SCHIP program for the populations for whom the SCHIP program was created.  That is why in December the House passed, by a 411—3 vote, legislation reauthorizing and extending the SCHIP program through March 2009.  That legislation included an additional $800 million in funding for states to ensure that all currently eligible children will continue to have access to state-based SCHIP coverage.

Medicare Funding Warning

Background:  Enactment of a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare proved controversial to certain segments of the conservative community.  While President Bush and a Republican Congress campaigned in 2000 and 2002 on a promise to extend prescription drug coverage to American seniors, some conservatives retained concerns about a significant expansion of government-financed entitlement spending, even though the benefit itself would be delivered through the private sector.  While conservatives generally admired proposals such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and other similar innovations designed to control the growth of health care spending, the size of the prescription drug benefit ultimately enacted—$400 billion in spending over ten years, and nearly $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities over 75 years—prompted calls for more comprehensive reforms to Medicare than those included in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA).

At the behest of the Republican Study Committee, the funding warning mechanism was included as one device to help alleviate conservatives’ concerns about Medicare’s long-term solvency and ensure that Medicare’s claims on general budgetary revenues would not overwhelm either other federal budgetary priorities or the national debt.  By providing “fast-track” procedures for considering bills to improve the program’s solvency, the Medicare trigger also provides conservatives with another opportunity to examine more fundamental reforms to the way seniors’ health care is financed and delivered.

Funding Warning Defined:  Section 801 of the Medicare Modernization Act provides that a funding warning will be issued if two consecutive annual reports by the Medicare trustees determine that general revenue Medicare spending—that is, Medicare spending not financed by payroll taxes, or by beneficiary premiums and co-payments—will exceed 45% of total Medicare outlays for the current fiscal year, or any of the following six fiscal years.  The April 2006 trustees report noted that Medicare outlays minus dedicated revenues were expected to exceed 45% of total outlays in 2012, and the April 2007 report concluded that Medicare outlays minus dedicated revenues are expected to exceed 45% of total outlays in 2013.  Thus, two consecutive trustees reports have indicated that Medicare will be deriving excess revenues from the general fund within the next seven years—triggering the expedited procedures provided as part of MMA.

Democrats have argued that the 45% measure for excess general revenue Medicare spending is “an artificial and misleading measure of Medicare’s fiscal health,” and Section 902 of the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act (H.R. 3162)—considered and passed by the House in July—would have repealed the excess funding warning mechanism entirely.[1]  However, the Medicare trustees report indicates that the percentage of Medicare spending taken from general revenues—which to date has never exceeded 45%—“is projected to continue growing throughout the 75-year period, reaching 63% of total outlays in 2031 and 73% in 2081.”[2]  With trustees noting that the Medicare trust funds require an additional $40.9 trillion in funding over the next 75 years to meet current obligations, most conservatives would argue that repealing the trigger provisions—which all Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee opposed in mark-up last year—would not represent sound fiscal policy.[3]

Expedited Procedures:  Sections 802 through 804 of MMA describe the expedited procedures by which the President and Congress will address the Medicare funding warning triggered by the April 2007 trustees report.  The process outlined in the statute includes the following steps:

  • Within 15 days of submitting his next budget to Congress, the President will also propose legislation to respond to the warning.  As the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget is expected to be released on February 4, 2008, the Medicare legislation should be received by the end of February.
  • Party leaders in both the House and Senate will introduce the President’s legislation within three legislative days of its submission, and the legislation shall be referred to the relevant Committees (Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce in the House, Finance in the Senate).
  • Committees in both the House and Senate shall report Medicare funding legislation to the floor of each chamber by June 30; if they do not, the relevant Committees may be discharged from consideration under special procedures.
  • In the House, one-fifth of the membership (87 Members) can move to discharge the President’s Medicare funding legislation, or any other legislation that remedies the Medicare funding warning, after July 30.  In the event that the motion to discharge is successful, the Medicare funding legislation shall be considered by the full House within three legislative days under procedures established in statute.
  • In the Senate, any Senator may move to discharge Medicare funding legislation after June 30, and such a motion will be considered under strict time limits precluding a filibuster.

In general, these special procedures seek to ensure that Members in both chambers have the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on whether or not Congress should consider legislation to remedy Medicare’s funding deficiencies.

Conclusion: The Medicare funding warning issued by the trustees last year provides an opportunity to re-assess the program’s structure and finance.  While competition among drug companies has ensured that expenditures for the MMA’s prescription drug benefit remain below the bill’s original estimates, introduction of pharmaceutical coverage has dramatically increased the overall growth of health care costs within the Medicare program, leading to the trustees’ funding warning.  The confluence of these two events should prompt Congress to consider the ways in which competition could be used to reduce the growth of overall Medicare costs, similar to the way in which the market for pharmaceutical coverage reduced the estimated cost of the Part D prescription drug benefit.

It remains to be seen whether the Administration will propose legislation that would constitute fundamental reform—either a mechanism to adjust benefits automatically in the case of funding shortfalls, or to inject greater competition into Medicare through a premium support program that would level the playing field between traditional Medicare and private insurance coverage.  Regardless, the Medicare funding warning being triggered this year affords Congress an opportunity to re-think and re-consider some of the drawbacks of the original MMA and put forth constructive alternatives to ensure Medicare’s long-term fiscal stability.

[1] House Report 110-284, p. 249.

[2] “2007 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Funds,” available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2007.pdf (accessed January 20, 2008), p. 37.

[3] Ibid., pp. 190-91; House Report 110-284, p 278.

Medicaid Funding Issues

Background:  The Medicaid program, enacted in 1965, serves as a federal-state partnership providing entitlement health care coverage to certain low-income and disabled populations.  Federal funding for the program is provided on a matching basis, according to a Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) formula established in statute.  The FMAP formula is based on a three-year rolling average that compares a state’s per-capita income to national-per capita income—a formula designed to provide increased federal assistance to poorer states.  For Fiscal Year 2008, 18 states have a match rate of 50% (the statutory minimum), while seven states have match rates at or above 70%.[1]

Concerns about the FMAP Formula: For several years, health policy experts have criticized the current Medicaid FMAP formula as not meeting its original intent, creating distortionary effects on funding levels between states by providing wealthier states with a strong incentive to increase entitlement spending using federal dollars.  An independent analysis of data provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) indicates that states with higher concentrations of poverty actually have lower per-capita Medicaid spending—exactly the opposite result of FMAP’s intended goal.[2]  For instance, Vermont spent $7,508 per capita on Medicaid during 2005—the highest amount nationwide—yet its 2005 poverty level of 10.4% ranks 11th–lowest overall and nearly 30% lower than the national average of 13.3%.[3]

The prime reason for the disparity between states’ per-capita Medicaid spending and relative poverty levels—a disparity which the FMAP formula was intended to remedy—lies in the perverse incentives the Medicaid match provides to states, particularly wealthier states that can more easily finance coverage expansions, to increase entitlement spending.  Because the federal match rate cannot fall below the 50% statutory minimum, states have a diminished incentive to bring their Medicaid programs in line by controlling costs.  A state receiving the minimum 50% match would need to cut overall Medicaid expenditures by $2 million to achieve $1 million in budgetary savings, while a state with a 70% FMAP match would need to cut overall Medicaid expenditures by $3,333,333 in order to achieve the same $1 million in net state savings.  Thus the FMAP formula, by ensuring that federal expenditures will always meet or exceed state outlays, encourages states to increase their Medicaid entitlement spending during strong economic times and discourages states from enacting Medicaid reductions during times of fiscal austerity.

Legislative History:  Congress has previously supported a temporary increase in the FMAP funding formula.  Title IV of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act (P.L. 108-27) included $10 billion to fund an enhanced FMAP match for 15 months, along with an additional $10 billion dedicated to “temporary state fiscal relief.”  The Title IV provisions included a 2.95% increase in FMAP rates for the last two quarters of 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004.  These provisions expired October 1, 2004 and were not renewed.

In general, House conservatives opposed this increase in Medicaid social welfare spending, but supported the underlying bill for the $350 billion in tax relief it contained, including reductions to dividend and capital gains rates which stimulated economic growth.  The FMAP provisions were added in the Senate, and maintained in conference at the behest of several Senators who, according to news reports, insisted on its inclusion to vote for the larger package, which passed the Senate on the basis of Vice President Cheney’s tie-breaking vote.

Recent State Actions:  While some states have claimed that their looming budgetary difficulties have been caused by revenue losses related to recent economic uncertainty, unwise fiscal policies in many instances bear more responsibility.  According to a November 2007 study by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 31 states have announced Medicaid eligibility expansions during 2008, and 13 states plan benefit package expansions during this year.  By contrast, only four states have proposed Medicaid eligibility reductions this year, and no state has proposed reducing benefits.  In addition, the report notes that “few states have taken advantage of the flexibility to change benefits or impose cost sharing” as a result of provisions included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), demonstrating states’ continued focus on expanding entitlement programs rather than utilizing flexibility provided by Congress to construct new benefit packages that could reduce health costs.[4]

The state Medicaid expansions proposed for the current fiscal year follow on the heels of additional expansions implemented during the last few years of economic growth, and further illustrate the distortionary effects of the FMAP formula.  The promise of a generous federal match of at least 1:1 encourages states to expand their Medicaid populations and benefits beyond prudent limits, and slowing growth in state revenues has prompted calls for the federal government to assume yet more responsibility for states’ poor planning decisions.

Conservative Concerns: Some conservatives may be troubled by talk of another attempt to increase the Medicaid FMAP formula – which some might call a “bailout” for states which over-extended entitlement promises over the last few years.  The temporary FMAP increase enacted in 2003 over conservatives’ concerns was designed to be just that: a one-time series of relief payments to states that over-extended their budgets during the late 1990s.  A second “temporary” increase would only provide additional incentive for states to expand their Medicaid entitlement spending, knowing that the federal government will provide additional funding to make up their own budgetary shortfalls.

Including an FMAP enhancement as part of a “stimulus” package would not result in any actual economic stimulus.  A higher match rate would only substitute federal dollars for state funding, providing no net economic benefit in either the short term or the long term.  The only true effects would be long term, and potentially quite costly—increased entitlement spending at both the federal and state levels.

However, the discussion of Medicaid funding levels does provide conservatives with an opportunity to raise the important issue of entitlement reform.  Rather than providing additional federal funds to states under the current FMAP formula, a more productive solution would entail comprehensive reform of the Medicaid funding mechanism.  One possible solution would see Medicaid converted into a block grant program, allowing for predictable payments to states and enabling Congress to engage in a more rational attempt to control health care costs while setting clear national fiscal priorities.  At a minimum, the existing FMAP formula needs a significant overhaul that would eliminate incentives for states to overspend by ensuring that federal Medicaid resources are directed to targeted low-income and disabled populations, not additional expansions of government-funded health care to other populations.

[1] Fiscal Year 2008 FMAP Table, available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/fmap08.htm (accessed January 18, 2008).

[2] Robert Helms, “The Medicaid Commission Report: A Dissent,” (Health Policy Outlook #2, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, January 2007), available at http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25434/pub_detail.asp (accessed January 18, 2008).

[3] Ibid.; U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/national.cgi?year=2005&ascii=  (accessed January 18, 2008).

[4] Kaiser Family Foundation, “State Fiscal Conditions and Medicaid,” (research report 7850-02, November 2007), available at http://kff.org/medicaid/upload/7580-02.pdf (accessed January 18, 2008).