Michigan’s new Democratic governor is attempting to reverse course on steps taken by her Republican predecessor to require childless, able-bodied beneficiaries of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion to meet work, training or community service requirements. In a February letter to the federal administrator of the program, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer called the work requirements “onerous.”
In the letter, Whitmer cited an analysis by the Manatt law firm, which predicted that Michigan’s new Medicaid work requirements would cause 61,000 to 183,000 people to lose their health coverage over the course of a year.
Doug Badger, senior fellow at the Galen Institute, says when so few individuals who were eligible for the Medicaid expansion in Arkansas re-enrolled, they made a rational decision that they were better off without the benefits.
“If you don’t report any work activity at all, after being told that this would cause you to lose benefits, that suggests that you don’t value the benefits very highly. This is consistent with research showing that Medicaid recipients receive about 20 to 40 cents of benefits for every dollar of Medicaid spending,” Badger said.
Hospital industry lobbying against health care regulatory changes paid off Thursday when the Georgia House voted against major certificate-of-need (CON) legislation by a 94-72 margin.
House Bill 198 remained alive temporarily after the chamber approved a motion to reconsider the legislation. But by late afternoon, the lead sponsor, Rep. Matt Hatchett (R-Dublin), said the bill would not be brought back up on Thursday, which was the 2019 General Assembly session’s Crossover Day.
The Trump Administration has proposed using its demonstration authority under section 1115A of the Social Security Act to test a method of reimbursement for physician-administered drugs based on prices in 14 countries. The proposal is controversial, raising constitutional questions about the agency’s authority to modify Medicare reimbursement absent congressional action, as well as objections to the use of international reference pricing. A recent paper from the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP) makes a useful contribution to this debate. The FREOPP paper recommends that the administration construct a market-based international index (MBII) that would exclude “industrialized countries with little room for market-based pricing.” This report examines the drug pricing and reimbursement policies in MBII countries and finds that these policies are generally not market-based. Secondly, it presents data showing that many drugs introduced between 2011 and 2018 are not available to consumers in MBII countries. Under the proposal advanced by the administration and that suggested by FREOPP, Medicare reimbursement for physician-administered drugs would largely be based on international reference prices in which the regulatory agency of one government sets drug prices based at least in part on those set by regulatory agencies in other countries. Importing these mutually reinforcing, centralized decisions into Medicare may reduce reimbursement for physician-administered drugs, but the new reimbursement system cannot be said to be based on market prices.
Left-wing Democrats in Congress have decided on a new version of “Medicare for All.” Turns out its going to be nothing like the Medicare program seniors are used to. What they have in mind is what we see in Canada.
Everyone (except American Indians and veterans) will be in the same system. Health care will be nominally free. Access to it will be determined by bureaucratic decision making.
Finland’s coalition government resigned on Friday a month ahead of a general election, saying it could not deliver on a healthcare reform package that is widely seen as crucial to securing long-term government finances.
Healthcare systems across much of the developed world have come under increasing stress in recent years as treatment costs soar and people live longer, meaning fewer workers are supporting more pensioners.
| Three years ago this month, as alarms were sounding across the country about the over-prescription of opioid painkillers, the federal government issued course-correcting guidelines for primary care doctors. But in a letter sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday, more than 300 medical experts, including three former White House drug czars, contend that the guidelines are harming one group of vulnerable patients: those with severe chronic pain who may have been taking opioids for years, without becoming addicted, so they can function in daily life and work. The leaders say the guidelines are being used as cover by insurers to deny reimbursement and by doctors to turn patients away. |
The sudden resignation of Scott Gottlieb, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, leaves a giant hole atop an agency that oversees a quarter of the U.S. economy. Which, of course, leads to an equally big question: Who will replace him? Top contenders include Amy Abernethy, formerly the chief medical officer at health data firm Flatiron Health, who became Gottlieb’s principal deputy commissioner early this year. Another contender is Ned Sharpless, director of the National Cancer Institute since October 2017, who would bring a deep knowledge of biotech to an FDA stint. And another is Brett Giroir, the current HHS assistant secretary for health, with experience in government, academia, and industry.
| Connecticut, Nevada, Illinois and Minnesota are looking at schemes that would allow anyone to buy into Medicaid. Washington State governor Jay Inslee and his allies in the state legislature plan to introduce a bill that would create a state-sponsored health plan—or public option—to compete against private insurers. Medicaid buy-ins and public options are little more than stepping stones to a complete government takeover of the health care system. They’d gradually put private insurers out of business. In the end, Americans would be left with low-quality government-sponsored insurance that forces them to pay higher taxes and endure long waits for treatment. |
Democratic lawmakers in Connecticut introduced legislation Thursday that would create a public option for health-care coverage, allowing individuals and small businesses to buy insurance through the state. Under the proposal, Connecticut would create multiple plans that small businesses and their employees could buy starting in July, leveraging the state’s existing purchasing power to lower costs. And in 2021 Connecticut would begin offering a new health-insurance option that any state resident would be able to join. The public insurance would offer coverage options for small businesses and individuals who don’t qualify for subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, officials said.
Put simply, there is nothing like Medicare for All anywhere in the industrialized world. Socialized medicine proposals, like the House version introduced last month by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D-WA), would offer everyone living in the United States comprehensive coverage with no deductibles and no copayments. Jayapal claims, “This is not a particularly ambitious plan, in the sense that so many others have done it.” But no industrialized nation has tried anything so sweeping. Not one provides soup-to-nuts government-paid insurance that covers everything without any cost-sharing from patients. None. Even so-called single-payer systems rely on some forms of private insurance.
Other reports show Democratic leaders are not as enthusiastic as Jayapal, et al. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an interview with Rolling Stone said moving to a single-payer system was the simplest way to bring about universal health care, but then noted an estimated $30 trillion cost. “That is, administratively, the simplest thing to do, but to convert to it? Thirty trillion dollars. Now, how do you pay for that?” Pelosi said.