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.

Graham-Cassidy and Conservative Health Reform

In its February budget submission to Congress, the Trump administration endorsed legislation “modeled after” the bill Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced last year, which would devolve much of Obamacare’s entitlement spending to the states.

The budget claims this legislation “would allow states to use the block grant for a variety of approaches in order to help their citizens.” But based on the most recent public version, the Graham-Cassidy bill needs significant changes to deliver true flexibility to states.

The administration endorsed Graham-Cassidy because it believes the legislation would give states flexibility to embrace a “variety of approaches” to health care and health insurance. But would the most recent version of the bill allow Idaho to implement its reforms without federal intrusion? In a word, no.

In at least two respects, Idaho’s plan violates the many federal requirements that would remain intact under Graham-Cassidy. Idaho’s proposal to allow annual limits of over $1,000,000, and its proposal to allow surcharges of up to 50 percent for individuals who do not maintain continuous coverage, both contravene the Washington-imposed regulatory apparatus Graham-Cassidy retains.

This raises an obvious question: If the only state-based insurance reform plan proposed to date violates Graham-Cassidy, then how much “flexibility” does the legislation really provide? To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, conservatives have not spent the past eight years fighting to roll back a Washington-based, regulatory leviathan imposed by a Democratic Congress, only to see that leviathan reimposed by a Republican one.

To its credit, the Trump administration has worked to roll back Obamacare’s regulatory regime. Consistent with its promise in the budget to generate “relie[f] from many of [Obamacare’s] insurance rules and pricing restrictions,” the administration has proposed rules allowing greater access to short-term insurance coverage and association health plans, both of which are exempt from some or all of the Obamacare statutory restrictions.

But make no mistake: While these actions will give some individuals freedom from Obamacare’s restrictions, they will not give states the control they deserve over their own insurance markets. To give the states the freedom that the Trump administration promised, Congress must repeal the federally imposed regulatory superstructure Obamacare created. Only by doing so will Washington give states the true flexibility to explore alternative visions of health care for their citizens—Graham-Cassidy’s stated goal.

If Congress does not act to give states freedom, a future Democratic administration will reimpose each and every health care regulation the Trump administration loosened—and many more besides. The Center for American Progress made as much crystal-clear recently, when in releasing the Left’s next plan for (more) government-run health care, it proposed legislation that would “leave little to no discretion to the Administration [of the day] on policy matters.”

To the Left, Obamacare isn’t about power so much as control. As President Reagan famously stated, the “little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital” think they can “plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” To liberals’ unquenchable desire to arrogate more power in Washington, conservatives must respond with freedom—freedom for states, and ultimately to businesses and individuals, to buy the coverage they want, and innovate in ways that can lower health spending.

The Graham-Cassidy bill has other flaws. It retains most of Obamacare’s spending (albeit disbursed to the states through the block grant) and all of its major tax increases. But at its core, the debate over health care remains one of control: Whether Washington will try to micromanage 50 states and more than 300 million people, or whether states and citizens can lead the way. We stand with the people—and hope that, after eight years of promises, the Republican Congress finally does likewise.

This post, co-written with former Sen. Jim DeMint, was originally published at The Federalist.

Republicans, Stop Avoiding Obamacare’s Problems and Start Fixing Them

With Congress having barely staved off attempts at a massive bailout of health insurers and Obamacare, the obvious question in health policy becomes: What should Congress do now?

Unfortunately, Republicans seem insistent on doing anything but solving the ultimate problem. As I have written on more occasions than I care to count, Obamacare’s regulatory scheme—particularly its requirements for pre-existing conditions—explain why premiums more than doubled from 2013 to 2017. That onerous regime necessitated requiring individuals to purchase, and employers to offer, health coverage; subsidies to make the (newly expensive) coverage more “affordable”; and tax increases and Medicare reductions to fund the subsidies.

One other option discussed of late would avoid addressing the problem entirely, by codifying the Trump administration’s proposed changes to short-term health plans. On one hand, this approach would provide a benefit, as short-term plans remain exempt from all the new requirements Obamacare imposes.

But the health care law’s regulatory regime created not one, but two, related problems. First, it raised premiums for most forms of insurance. But just as importantly, it did so via a massive federal intrusion into a realm—health insurance—where states had virtual free rein for nearly seven decades. Following passage of the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1947, the federal government exercised minimal control of states’ individual health insurance markets, until Obamacare.

To see the effects of Obamacare on state markets, take the case of Idaho. The state wants to permit the sale of insurance plans that meet some, but not all, of the law’s regulatory requirements. But unfortunately, because the federal statute supersedes a state’s wishes, the Trump administration recently told Idaho it cannot offer policies that do not comply with federal law.

However, the idea that a Republican Congress would codify the rules on short-term plans, while keeping in place the onerous federally imposed regime that micro-manages all 50 states’ health insurance markets, defies any commitment to the principles of federalism. At least one state has publicly called short-term plans an insufficient option for its residents. Others very likely agree. If they believe in federalism, why would lawmakers in Washington purposefully deny Idahoans the freedom to make their own choices?

Last month’s White House budget claimed the Graham-Cassidy health care legislation would “support states as they transition to more sustainable health care programs that provide appropriate choices for their citizens.” But a bill keeping Obamacare’s regulatory regime in place, while allowing short-term plans as a “lifeboat” for those who wish it, would do the exact opposite. Such legislation might give freedom to some individuals, but it would not give any freedom to states to manage their own health insurance markets as they see fit, or to “provide appropriate choices for their citizens.”

I wrote last April that Republicans faced a binary choice: They could keep the status quo on pre-existing conditions, or they could repeal Obamacare—but they cannot do both. Instead of throwing money at the problem, or using political dodges like short-term plans to avoid it, they should get about actually fixing the underlying problem. Or come clean with the American people, and admit that they never wanted to repeal Obamacare in the first place.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

What You Need to Know about the Proposed Short-Term Plans Rule

On Tuesday morning, the Trump administration issued a proposed rule regarding short-term health insurance plans. The action represents the second prong of the Trump administration’s strategy, outlined in last October’s executive order, to offer regulatory relief to insurance markets. The Department of Labor acted on the first prong, issuing a proposed rule expanding access to association health plans, in January.

As I noted in October, the Obama administration issued a rule in October 2016 designed to limit short-term plans. The Public Health Service Act specifically exempts “short-term, limited-duration insurance” from the definition of “individual health insurance coverage,” exempting such plans from all of Obamacare’s new, federally imposed regulatory regime (though they are regulated by states).

The Trump Administration’s Proposal

The Trump administration’s proposed rule would revise the disclosure slightly (in part to reflect the repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, set to take effect in January 2019), and restore the prior definition of short-term coverage to “less than 12 months.”

The proposed rule also requests comment on the ways to facilitate streamlined renewal of short-term plans. As I noted in an article last year, limiting individuals’ ability to renew policies harmed people who develop illnesses while on short-term plans:

Jimmy Kimmel forgot to mention it, but prohibiting coverage renewals harms individuals with pre-existing conditions, because it forbids customers who develop a pre-existing condition while on short-term plans from continuing their coverage. In discouraging these short-term plans, the Obama administration preferred individuals going without coverage entirely over seeing anyone purchase a policy lacking the full panoply of ‘government-approved’ benefits.

The Trump administration can and should rescind this coercive rule and its perverse consequences immediately.

Effective Dates and Impact

The administration estimates that the proposed rule would lead only about 100,000-200,000 individuals to switch from individual coverage to short-term plans, only about 10 percent of whom would have qualified for Obamacare insurance subsidies on exchanges. The administration also estimates the rule would raise spending on premium subsidies by $96-168 million annually. Because the individuals shifting to short-term coverage would be younger and healthier than average, they would slightly increase premiums, and thus premium subsidies, on the insurance exchanges.

However, these comparatively modest estimates on both the coverage and cost fronts suggest that short-term plans may have less of an impact than conservatives had hoped—or liberals have feared. Time will tell if the predictions prove an over-estimate or under-estimate; perhaps more definitive actions to allow for the guaranteed renewal of short-term coverage will increase their popularity.

What Should Be the Next Steps?

Now that it has proposed this rule, the administration should take regulatory action on another front, by stopping a movement in Idaho to offer non-compliant health plans. Last month, the state’s insurance department offered guidance to insurers about new coverage offerings. The new plans could:

  • Impose limits on pre-existing conditions for individuals without continuous coverage;
  • Limit benefits provided to $1 million annually;
  • Not offer maternity care in all cases (although each carrier must sell one plan with maternity coverage); and
  • Charge older individuals up to five times as much as younger individuals when calculating premium rates.

But the Idaho guidance hints at one big problem. It instructs insurers selling the plans in question to disclose to consumers that “This policy is not fully compliant with federal health insurance requirements.”

Therefore, as a matter of law, I cannot support the Idaho effort, not because I support or want to sustain Obamacare—I don’t—but because I support and want to sustain the rule of law, which is more important than any single piece of legislation. Unfortunately in this instance, federal law supersedes state law, which means the federal law must prevail.

I wrote in January 2017 that the Trump administration had an obligation to enforce the individual mandate. Likewise here, the administration has an obligation to enforce the Obamacare statute, and either redirect Idaho’s efforts to bring them into compliance with the law—perhaps through a Section 1332 innovation waiver, although that waiver may not bring the state sufficient flexibility—or quash them. The administration has a constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and it should not follow the Obama administration’s example of picking and choosing which laws it wishes to enforce.

Better yet, Congress can and should repeal the regulations that represent the beating heart of Obamacare. They have a roadmap to do so, even with a slim Senate majority. Such action would allow Idaho, and 49 other states, to innovate to their heart’s content to provide more affordable coverage to their residents—an outcome consistent with the rule of law, and federalism, that conservatives could embrace whole-heartedly.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

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. ­­­

Legislative Bulletin: H.R. 6983, Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act

Order of Business:  The bill is scheduled to be considered on Tuesday, September 23, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass.

Summary:  H.R. 6983 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—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:  The bill would require group health plans to offer a financial benefit structure for mental and substance abuse disorders that is no more restrictive than the predominant requirements applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits.  The federal mandate would apply to overall coverage limits on treatment (e.g. number of days or visits) 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.

Medical Necessity:  The bill would permit plans to make coverage decisions for mental health and substance abuse disorders based on medical necessity criteria, but would require employers and insurers to disclose such criteria pursuant to regulations.

Out-of-Network Benefits:  The bill would mandate plans that offer out-of-network insurance coverage for medical and surgical benefits provide out-of-network coverage for mental health benefits in a manner consistent with the financial requirements listed above.

Increased Cost Exemption:  The bill 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, consistent with current law.

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.

Worldwide Interest Allocation:  H.R. 6983 would delay by two years (from 2011 to 2013) the implementation of the worldwide allocation of interest, and reduces the first-year implementation of this rule.  In 2004, Congress gave taxpayers the option of using a liberalized rule for allocating interest expense between United States sources and foreign sources for the purposes of determining a taxpayer’s foreign tax credit limitation.  This is a multi-billion-dollar tax increase on Americans, taking particular aim at people who have financial dealings abroad.

Additional Background—Differences from Earlier Legislation:  On March 5, 2008, the House by a 268-148 vote passed mental health parity legislation in the form of H.R. 1424.  Subsequent negotiations with the Senate made modifications to the House-passed language that incorporated several key provisions in bipartisan Senate legislation (S. 558), and removed some provisions objectionable to conservatives.  Specifically, the compromise language in H.R. 6983:

  • 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, as was proposed in H.R. 1424;
  • Remains silent on codifying classes of mental disorders—the compromise language removes provisions included in H.R. 1424 requiring group health plans to offer coverage for all disorders under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including psycho-sexual disorders many conservatives find objectionable;
  • Does not mandate an out-of-network coverage benefit—plans must offer out-of-network coverage for mental disorders only to the extent they do so for medical and surgical benefits; and
  • Includes language stating that mental health parity provisions do not affect the “terms and conditions” of insurance contracts to the extent they do not conflict with the bill language—permitting employers and carriers to continue making medical necessity and related determinations—while requiring plans to make information on these medical management practices transparent.

While some conservatives may still have concerns with the mandates imposed by mental health parity legislation and the way in which these mandates would increase health insurance premiums, some segments of the business community have embraced the 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.

Additional Background on Benefit Mandates:  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—one reason why H.R. 6983 seeks to impose those mandates on group plans (as well as state-regulated individual plans) on the federal level.

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.

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 due to rising premium costs resulting from benefit mandates 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.

Committee Action:  None; the bill was introduced on September 22, 2008.

Possible Conservative Concerns:  Several aspects of H.R. 6983 may raise concerns for conservatives, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:

  • Process.  Multiple sources and press reports indicate that numerous stakeholders involved in negotiating the bipartisan Senate compromise have concerns with the House’s consideration of stand-alone mental health parity legislation—as opposed to its inclusion in the tax extenders package.  As recently as Monday, September 22, House Democrat leadership indicated they would not attempt to pass the mental health parity provisions separately; however, the majority later switched course.  Some conservatives may be concerned by reports indicating that this separate House vote is intended to provide “political cover” for Blue Dogs who may oppose the tax extenders bill (with mental health parity included) because it does not include enough tax increases to offset extensions of existing tax relief.
  • Tax Increase.  In order to pay for the nearly $4 billion cost of mental health parity, H.R. 6983 would delay by a further two years a provision allowing taxpayers flexibility in allocating worldwide interest for the purposes of determining a taxpayer’s foreign tax credit limitation.  Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision increases taxes on Americans in order to pay for H.R. 6983’s benefit mandates.
  • Increase Health Insurance Costs and Number of Uninsured.  As noted above, benefit mandates generally have the effect of increasing the cost of health insurance.  Moreover, 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.[3]  Therefore, some conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 6983 will actually increase the number of uninsured Americans.
  • Private-Sector Mandates on Businesses; UMRA Violation.  As detailed above, the bill contains multiple new federal mandates on the private sector, affecting the design and structure of health insurance plans.  CBO has previously estimated that mental health parity would impose mandates on the private sector totaling $1.3 billion in 2008, rising to $3 billion in 2012, thus exceeding the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or UMRA ($131 million in FY2007, adjusted annually for inflation).  These costs will ultimately be borne by employers offering health insurance and employees seeking to obtain coverage.

Administration Position:  Although the Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) was not available, the Administration has previously supported the goal of mental health parity—and previously opposed the worldwide interest allocation provision used to pay for H.R. 6983.

Cost to Taxpayers:  A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of H.R. 6983 was not available at press time.  However, CBO estimates of previously considered (H.R. 1424) mental health parity legislation noted that the bill 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 delaying by two years (from 2011 to 2013) the implementation of the worldwide allocation of interest, and reducing the first-year implementation of this rule. In 2004, Congress gave taxpayers, beginning in tax years after 2008, the option of using a liberalized rule for allocating interest expense between United States sources and foreign sources for the purposes of determining a taxpayer’s foreign tax credit limitation.

Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government?:  Yes, the bill would impose new federal mandates with respect to health insurance coverage requirements.

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 has previously estimated 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, a prior CBO cost estimate indicated 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. 6983’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 has estimated 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?:  A Committee report citing compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI was unavailable.

Constitutional Authority:  A Committee report citing Constitutional authority was unavailable.

 

[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] 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.

Legislative Bulletin: H.R. 758, Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act

Order of Business:  The bill is scheduled to be considered on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

Summary:   H.R. 758 would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code to require group and individual health plans to meet certain minimum coverage requirements with respect to breast cancer surgeries.  Specifically, the bill would:

  • Require plans to have coverage for inpatient and radiation therapy with respect to breast cancer treatment;
  • Require plans to cover 48-hour hospital stays in the case of mastectomy or lumpectomy procedures, and 24-hour hospital stays in the case of lymph node dissections to treat breast cancer;
  • Prohibit plans from requiring pre-authorization for hospital stays within the time limits prescribed above;
  • Require plans to cover secondary consultations with specialists regarding the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, including cases with a negative initial diagnosis.  If no specialist is available within the plan’s network, the plan would be required to pay for out-of-network coverage, with any co-payments or co-insurance charged to the beneficiary limited to in-network levels. (NOTE: This mandate would apply to all cancer diagnoses, not just those related to breast cancer, as the bill’s title implies); and
  • Prohibit plans from offering financial inducements to providers or patients in an attempt to subvert the federal mandates imposed above.

In addition, H.R. 758 contains language regarding the rescission of insurance plans purchased in the individual market.  The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit plans from rescinding policies except in the case of “intentional concealment of material facts regarding a health condition related to the condition for which coverage is being claimed.”  The bill also provides for a process of independent external review prior to the rescission or discontinuation of the insurance plan.

Additional 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—one reason why H.R. 758 seeks to impose those mandates on group plans (as well as state-regulated individual plans) on the federal level.

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.

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 due to rising premium costs resulting from benefit mandates 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.

Committee Action:  H.R. 758 was introduced on January 31, 2007, and referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor.  On September 17, 2008, the Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered the bill, as amended, reported by voice vote.

Cost to Taxpayers:  A CBO score for H.R. 758 was unavailable at press time.  However, the Congressional Budget Office has previously scored a mental health parity benefit mandate as costing nearly $4 billion over ten years.

Conservative Concerns:  Some conservatives may have concerns with H.R. 758, including but not limited to:

  • Increase Health Insurance Costs and Number of Uninsured.  As noted above, benefit mandates generally have the effect of increasing the cost of health insurance.  Moreover, 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.[3]  Therefore, some conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 758 will actually increase the number of uninsured Americans.
  • Unfunded Private-Sector Mandates on Small and Large Businesses.  As detailed above, 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 plans to cover out-of-network specialist consultations for all types of cancer, even if the initial consultation resulted in a negative diagnosis.
  • Undermines Federalism; Democrat Hypocrisy.  In addition to imposing mandates on group health insurance plans generally regulated at the federal level under ERISA, H.R. 758 would also impose these same mandates on individual health insurance plans, which under the McCarran-Ferguson Act are regulated at the state level.  Some conservatives may be concerned by this attempt to undermine state authority and micro-manage health insurance plans.  In addition, some conservatives may note that Democrats who previously cited “state consumer protections” as one reason to oppose efforts to purchase health insurance across state lines now apparently find even these “protections” insufficient, and wish to impose additional layers of federal regulation on individual insurance plans.

Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government?  Yes, the bill would create new federal insurance mandates related to cancer coverage and treatment.

Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates?  Yes, the bill would require employers to comply with several new federal mandates related to cancer coverage and treatment.

Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?:  A Committee report citing compliance with Clause 9 of Rule XXI regarding earmarks was unavailable.

Constitutional Authority:  A Committee report citing constitutional authority was unavailable.

 

[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] 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.

SCHIP Enrollment

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.  In addition, states may expand eligibility requirements by submitting state plan amendments and/or Section 1115 waiver requests to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).[1]  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.

One concern of many conservatives regarding the SCHIP program relates to crowd-out—a phenomenon whereby individuals who had previously held private health insurance drop that coverage in order to enroll in a public program.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of H.R. 3963, a five-year SCHIP reauthorization which the President vetoed (and the House failed to override), found that of the 5.8 million children who would obtain Medicaid or SCHIP coverage under the legislation, more than one-third, or 2 million, would do so by dropping private health insurance coverage.

In order to prevent policies that encourage crowd-out, and ensure that SCHIP funds are more effectively allocated to the low-income beneficiaries for whom the program was created, CMS on August 17, 2007 issued guidance to state health officials about the way it would evaluate waiver proposals by states to expand their SCHIP programs.  Among other provisions, the letter stated that CMS would require states seeking to expand coverage to children with family incomes above 250% of FPL must first enroll 95% of eligible children below 200% of FPL, consistent with the original design and intent of the SCHIP program.  Congressional Democrats have introduced both a bill (H.R. 5998) and a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (S. J. Res. 44) designed to repeal the Administration’s guidance.

Enrollment of Wealthier Children:  An analysis performed by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), using data provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), provides some indication of the extent to which states are focusing their efforts on enrolling poor children first before expanding their SCHIP programs up the income ladder.  Comparison of Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 data reveal that in FY06, an estimated 586,117 children from families with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty level—approximately $41,000 for a family of four—were covered under SCHIP by a total of 15 states.

By contrast, in FY07, a total of 17 states and the District of Columbia covered an estimated 612,439 children in their SCHIP programs—an increase of nearly 30,000 children from wealthier families.  Much of this increase stems in part from decisions by three states—Maryland, Missouri, and Pennsylvania—along with the District of Columbia to extend SCHIP coverage to children with family incomes up to 300% of FPL during calendar year 2007, just prior to the release of the Administration’s SCHIP guidance.  In short, the data show no discernable trend by states to target their energies on enrolling lower-income children first before expanding SCHIP up the income scale—a key concern of many conservatives during the debate on children’s health legislation last year.

Enrollment of Adults in Children’s Program:  The CRS report also analyzes the coverage of adults—pregnant women, parents, and childless adults—in the SCHIP program.  The CRS data do indicate that the total number of adults decreased from FY06 to FY07, and the number of childless adults on the SCHIP rolls halved.  However, the number of states covering adults increased, and several states saw expansion of the number of adults, and childless adults, covered under the program:

  • Eight states—Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia—saw overall adult populations in SCHIP increase;
  • Three states—Idaho, New Mexico, and Oregon—saw increased enrollment in the number of childless adults;
  • Seven states— Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon—saw increased enrollment in the number of parents covered;
  • Three states—Colorado, Nevada, and Rhode Island—increased SCHIP enrollment for pregnant women.

While many conservatives may support the overall reduction in adults enrolled in a children’s health insurance program, some may still be concerned by the persistence of adult coverage—particularly given decisions by both Arkansas and Nevada to expand coverage to adults during FY07.  In addition, the fact that nearly 75% of the reduction in adult SCHIP enrollment from FY06 to FY07 came from one state’s (Arizona) decision to remove childless adults from the program rolls may lead some conservatives to question whether this welcome development was a one-year anomaly or part of a larger trend.

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.

However, many conservatives retain concerns about actions by states or the federal government that would reduce private health insurance coverage while increasing reliance on a government-funded program.  To that end, data proving that many states have expanded coverage to wealthier populations without first ensuring that low-income children are enrolled in SCHIP, and that states have in recent months expanded coverage under a children’s health insurance program to adult populations, suggest that some states continue to expand government-funded health insurance, at significant cost to state and federal taxpayers, in a manner that may encourage individuals to drop private coverage.

Particularly given these developments, conservatives may believe that the Administration’s guidance to states remains consistent with the goal of ensuring that SCHIP remains targeted toward the low-income populations for which it was designed.  Therefore, many conservatives will support the reasonable attempts by CMS to bolster the integrity of the SCHIP program while retaining state plans’ flexibility, and question efforts by Congressional Democrats to encourage further expansion of government-funded health insurance financed by federal taxpayers.

 

[1] In general, state plan amendments can expand eligibility to higher income brackets, or otherwise modify state plans, while Section 1115 waivers by definition require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive statutory requirements under demonstration authority.  For more information, see CRS Report RL 30473, available online at http://www.congress.gov/erp/rl/pdf/RL30473.pdf (accessed September 8, 2008).