Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report
COBRA Coverage Too Costly, Families USA Study Finds
Frist, Kennedy To Formally Introduce $3.2B Bioterrorism Bill
House Approves Bill To Ease Regulatory 'Hurdles' for Medicare Providers
Medicare Beneficiaries in Medicare+Choice Plans Will Be 'Paying More, Getting Less,' Scully Tells House Health Subcommittee
Compromise on Mental Health Parity Bill Remains Elusive
Fauci May be Asked to Fill Long-Vacant NIH Director Post
Federal Audit Says Missouri 'Improperly Reaped' $1.6B from Medicaid Program
TennCare Oversight Committee Expected To Hold Nonbinding Vote This Week on Reform Proposals
Minnesota Governor Announces Creation of Task Force To Examine Ways To Lower State's Health Care Costs
Insurers To Introduce New Fixed Account Health Plans That Could Raise Expenses for the Sickest
HHS, HUD 'Policy Academies' Work to Improve Access to Health Care for Homeless
Special Coverage: Sept. 11
Stimulus Talks Commence; Disagreement Remains over Health Benefits for Unemployed
[Dec 05, 2001]
House and Senate lawmakers on the evening of Dec. 4 began negotiations on an economic stimulus bill, which will likely include provisions to help unemployed workers purchase health insurance, and say they hope to reach an agreement before the holiday recess, the Washington Post reports. The legislators met for 90 minutes on Dec. 4 to address organizational issues and on Dec. 5 plan to begin "substantive dealmaking" (Kessler, Washington Post, 12/5). The House approved economic stimulus legislation in October, but the Senate has not passed a bill, "so the traditional rules of working out an agreement in conference do not apply." As a result, "special procedures were necessary" to agree on the terms of negotiations on the bill (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 11/30). After "days of wrangling," lawmakers on Dec. 3 agreed to appoint a negotiation team made up of six lawmakers -- one Senate and two House Republicans, and one House and two Senate Democrats -- to debate tax and unemployment provisions. A second group of six lawmakers from the two chambers will address Medicaid provisions in the proposed legislation (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 12/4). Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) will represent House Democrats on Medicaid issues, while members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid issues, will likely represent House Republicans. CongressDaily does not report which senators will participate in the process (CongressDaily, 12/4). Differing Bills Democrats support an economic stimulus bill that would provide health insurance subsidies directly to unemployed workers, while Republicans "would give states money for that purpose and let them spend it as they please" (Lightman, Hartford Courant, 12/5). "For us it's very simple. We need unemployment compensation. We need health care," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said (Washington Post, 12/5). Last month, Senate Democrats proposed a bill, blocked by Senate Republicans, that would have provided $14.3 billion to extend benefits for unemployed workers by 13 weeks and $12.3 billion to help unemployed workers purchase health coverage through COBRA. COBRA, the 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, allows unemployed workers to retain health coverage under their former employers' insurance plans by paying 102% of the premiums. In addition, the legislation would have allowed states to extend Medicaid coverage to unemployed workers who do not qualify for COBRA and provided $1.4 billion to boost the federal match to states for Medicaid (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 11/15). The House in October approved a different $100 billion GOP-sponsored bill, supported by President Bush, that would increase by $3 billion funding for the Social Services Block Grant program to allow states to provide health insurance to unemployed workers and their families (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 10/29).
COBRA Coverage Too Costly, Families USA Study Finds
[Dec 05, 2001]
More than 725,000 laid-off workers have lost their health insurance since the economy dipped into a recession in March, a report by the advocacy group Families USA has found, the Columbus Dispatch reports (Riskind, Columbus Dispatch, 12/5). About 345,000 of those laid-off workers have lost their health insurance since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Families USA adds that the 725,000 figure likely is an understatement as it does not include workers' dependents who have also lost health coverage, since those numbers are "incalculable" with currently available data. The study was based on unemployment reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau (Families USA release, 12/4). Families USA is using the study to push for expanded federal assistance to help workers maintain their health insurance, and the report was released to coincide with congressional discussions over the economic stimulus package, the Dispatch reports. While federal law allows laid-off workers to keep their health coverage by paying 102% of the premiums through the 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, the study found 80% of laid-off workers cannot afford to purchase such coverage (Columbus Dispatch, 12/5). The average cost of COBRA coverage is $7,194 a year. Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack said, "COBRA health coverage is a potential lifeline for laid-off workers. But, for most families, that lifeline is out of reach because it is unaffordable. A significant COBRA subsidy could change that and provide real protection for America's workers and their families" (Families USA release, 12/4). An economic stimulus package proposed by Senate Democrats $12.3 billion to help unemployed workers purchase COBRA, but the measure was blocked last month. House and Senate negotiators are currently negotiating compromise stimulus legislation (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 12/4). The Families USA study is available online. Note: You must have Adobe Acrobat to access the study.
Frist, Kennedy To Formally Introduce $3.2B Bioterrorism Bill
[Dec 05, 2001]
Sens. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) will "formally introduce" a $3.2 billion bioterrorism authorization bill on Dec. 5, CongressDaily reports. The bill has 66 cosponsors in the Senate but is competing with other bioterrorism legislation (CongressDaily, 12/4). The Frist-Kennedy proposal includes money for drugs and vaccines and would give $1.1 billion to states, including $670 million in grants for bioterrorism preparedness. The bill also would provide $500 million to protect food supplies and crops and $120 million for the CDC to improve its medical response system and laboratories and create a national laboratory network (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 11/16). Although the Senate leadership has said that more funding for bioterrorism will be appropriated by the end of the session, CongressDaily reports that it "remains unclear" which legislation the Senate will consider (CongressDaily, 12/4). For comprehensive public health information from the CDC on anthrax and other bioterrorism issues, please visit www.bt.cdc.gov.
Medicare
House Approves Bill To Ease Regulatory 'Hurdles' for Medicare Providers
[Dec 05, 2001]
The House on Dec. 4 voted 408-0 to approve a bill ( HR 3391) that would ease "regulatory hurdles" for Medicare providers and reform the program's contracting system, the AP/Washington Post reports (Nakashima/Tucker, AP/Washington Post, 12/5). The bipartisan Medicare Regulatory and Contacting Reform Act of 2001 "blend[s]" provisions from a bill (HR 3046) passed earlier this year by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and another bill (HR 2768) approved by the House Ways and Means Committee. Under the bill, CMS officials could only issue Medicare regulations one time per month and could not make "substantive regulatory changes" retroactive. The legislation would allow providers 30 days to comply with new rules. In addition, the bill would "give incentives for health care providers to improve the educational outreach efforts and help beneficiaries get answers to their questions." The bill would establish a single, toll-free telephone number that beneficiaries could call for help (Reuters/Los Angeles Times, 12/5). The legislation would limit the use of "extrapolation" by CMS officials to determine the amount providers owe to the government in overpayments, expand the right that providers have to appeal and streamline the appeals process. The bill also would ensure that CMS and the FDA share information on new technologies, require studies on Medicare reimbursement systems and improvements to emergency room care and impose civil monetary penalties on hospitals that do not comply with blood-borne pathogen rules (Fulton, CongressDaily, 12/4). Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) sponsored the bill (HR 3391 text). The bill represents "months of bipartisan negotiations" between the Bush administration and "oft-sparring" House committees, and would "dramatically reform the way CMS interacts with providers, contractors and beneficiaries," CongressDaily reports (Fulton, CongressDaily, 12/4). 'Unclear Fate' in Senate The Senate, however, has not considered such legislation this year (Reuters/Los Angeles Times, 12/5). Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and ranking member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced a similar bill (S 1738) last week, but CongressDaily reports that its "fate is unclear." The House bill may "fall by the wayside" amid negotiations on an economic stimulus bill (CongressDaily, 12/4).
Medicare Beneficiaries in Medicare+Choice Plans Will Be 'Paying More, Getting Less,' Scully Tells House Health Subcommittee
[Dec 05, 2001]
Many health plans will withdraw from Medicare+Choice next year, and those that do not will likely increase costs for beneficiaries and reduce services, CMS Administrator Thomas Scully on Dec. 4 told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, CongressDaily/AM reports. According to Scully, 60.5% of Medicare beneficiaries will have access to a Medicare HMO next year, down from 74% in 1998, and only 50% of beneficiaries will have access to a health plan that offers prescription drug coverage, down from 65% in 1999 (Rovner, CongressDaily/AM, 12/5). In addition, many Medicare+Choice plans that offer a prescription drug benefit will shift coverage from brand-name drugs to generic treatments (MacDonald, Hartford Courant, 12/5). Scully added that beneficiaries who participate in Medicare+Choice will likely face increased out-of-pocket costs. In 2002, 32% of Medicare HMO enrollees will have to pay premiums that exceed their monthly Medicare Part B costs by more than $50, up from 14% this year, Scully said. "Plans with both zero premiums and no significant beneficiary cost sharing have largely disappeared. In addition, plans are offering less generous drug benefits," he said (Rovner, CongressDaily/AM, 12/5). Reimbursement Rates to Blame? Scully and HMO officials "blame" low Medicare+Choice reimbursement rates for the increase in costs and reduction in services (Hartford Courant, 12/5). "Between 1998 and 2002, Medicare+Choice rates increased 11.5% in counties that received the minimum payment update," while spending on traditional fee-for-service Medicare increased 21%, Scully said (CongressDaily/AM, 12/5). He also said that annual increases in Medicare+Choice reimbursements "have failed to reflect rising health care costs." According to Scully, "Unfortunately, as a result, plans that wish to stay in the program are left with two options: reducing benefits or increasing beneficiary cost-sharing" (Hartford Courant, 12/5). However, a General Accounting Office report released Dec. 3 found that increased reimbursements for health plans that participate in Medicare+Choice have not stopped the withdrawal of HMOs from the program and have had "little effect on the number of [Medicare] beneficiaries with access" to managed care plans. The GAO report also found that many health plans have used the additional funds to increase reimbursements to hospitals and health care providers, but "relatively few" have improved benefits for beneficiaries (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 12/4). The GAO report provided Ways and Means Health subcommittee members with "new fuel to fight" increased reimbursements for Medicare HMOs. "More money doesn't equal better benefits or a bigger or stable program. This report makes that clear," Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), ranking member of the subcommittee, said (CongressDaily/AM, 12/5).
Capitol Hill Watch
Compromise on Mental Health Parity Bill Remains Elusive
[Dec 05, 2001]
Negotiations between House and Senate members over the Senate-passed mental health parity measure continued on Dec. 4, but senior House Republicans and business groups remain "staunchly" opposed to a compromise that would enact the expansion of the 1996 parity law but allow some businesses an exemption, the New York Times reports. Under a compromise deal first offered last week by Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.), the chair of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, employers who demonstrate to the government that their health care costs would rise by 1% or more would be exempted from the parity requirements of the Senate-passed measure, which, as it stands, would require insurers that provide mental health coverage to offer benefits at the same level as the benefits provided for physical health coverage. The Senate bill also would exempt businesses with fewer than 50 employees. But neither side is satisfied with Johnson's proposal. Backers of the Senate bill, including its sponsors, Sens. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), say the cost exemption should be higher. "It should be in the area of 2%," Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) said. But many employers are opposed to the parity measure, even with an exemption. Paul Dennett, vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group composed mainly of Fortune 500 companies, said, "[Rep.] Johnson's proposal is helpful but does not cure the underlying problem. Employers need flexibility in designing health benefits." Opposition at the Top Adding to the difficulty of reaching a compromise is the opposition of the House leadership. The Senate passed the parity measure as an amendment to the fiscal year 2002 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The House version of the spending bill had "no comparable provision," and a conference committee is meeting to try to reach a compromise. But House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) believes that the Labor-HHS spending bill is "not a proper vehicle for new insurance requirements," according to his spokesperson John Feehery. Meanwhile, the chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce -- Bill Thomas (R-Ca.), Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and John Boehner (R-Ohio), respectively -- have all stated their opposition to the Senate measure. "At a time when hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs, we should not be placing additional strains on the employer-based health care system," Tauzin said. An aide to Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), who is chairing the conference committee, said the lawmaker was "somewhat sympathetic" to the parity measure but was not "pushing" it because of the opposition of a "formidable lineup" of senior House Republicans. But Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who are the leading Senate negotiators on the committee, continue to advocate the measure. "It's a real battle," Specter said (Pear, New York Times, 12/5). How About 2.5%? A Dec. 5 Los Angeles Times editorial voices support for the Senate-passed measure and urges House Republicans to accept a cost exemption of 2.5% (Los Angeles Times, 12/5).
Administration Watch
Fauci May be Asked to Fill Long-Vacant NIH Director Post
[Dec 05, 2001]
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci may be "leaned on once more" by the Bush administration to take over as director of the NIH, Al Kamen reports in his Dec. 5 Washington Post "In the Loop" column. Fauci reportedly has been offered the job "several times" but declined because he "likes his job." The position has been vacant since former Director Harold Varmus stepped down in December 1999 (Kamen, Washington Post, 12/5).
Medicaid
Federal Audit Says Missouri 'Improperly Reaped' $1.6B from Medicaid Program
[Dec 05, 2001]
CMS Administrator Tom Scully has "threatened" to withhold millions of dollars in federal funds from Missouri based on a federal audit that found the state has "improperly reaped" more than $1.6 billion from Medicaid, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. Missouri imposes a tax on hospitals and nursing homes to help finance the state's Medicaid program; the federal government matches the revenue raised by the tax. A recent federal audit says that the system, which was developed by the Missouri Hospital Association, violates a 1991 law because it redistributes the tax revenue to the health facilities and "guarantees that each [facility] will get back what it has paid through the tax." The audit adds that "the full burden of the tax falls only on the Medicaid program." In a "sharply worded" letter sent to Missouri Gov. Bob Holden (D) on Nov. 29, Scully wrote that the state has not responded to "repeated outreach efforts" by the federal government to resolve the problem. "I have done everything imaginable to get the state's attention on this issue ... to no avail," Scully wrote, adding, "The state appears to be intent on forcing me to make decisions that are most certainly not in its interests." State Officials 'Surprised' However, Missouri officials, "surprised by the tone and tenor of the letter," said that they have moved to "resolve the matter" with Scully. Katherine Martin, director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, said, "We were in the process of working with him ... [W]e were getting very close to presenting" a proposal to address the issue. She added, "He's definitely raising the stakes by making the threat." Missouri officials called the tax "perfectly legal." Martin said, "It is legal ... and we're very comfortable going to bat with it." She added, however, that she would "proceed with her efforts to create an alternative program" to address concerns that Scully has raised. Jerry Nachtigal, a spokesperson for Holden, said that the governor would "respond promptly" to the letter. According to some Missouri lawmakers, "any effort to recoup the funds" from the state would "devastate Missouri's health care system." Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) said, "If they're going to ask us to return $1.6 billion, that's going to tear up the program. It's not like we're using these funds to build roads. We're using these funds ... to serve the health care needs of our state" (Shesgreen, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12/3).
TennCare Oversight Committee Expected To Hold Nonbinding Vote This Week on Reform Proposals
[Dec 05, 2001]
The TennCare Oversight Committee has been meeting this week to discuss a proposal by Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist (R) that would alter the structure of TennCare, the state's Medicaid managed care program, the Chattanooga Times & Free Press reports (Park, Chattanooga Times & Free Press, 12/4). Sundquist's "controversial" proposal, to be sent to federal officials as a modification of the existing TennCare waiver, would scale back the program to a managed care plan -- called TennCare Medicaid -- for Medicaid-eligible residents. Sundquist's plan also calls for the creation of TennCare Standard, which would offer benefits similar to those under a commercial managed care plan to adults with no access to group insurance and with incomes below the poverty level; children in families with incomes below 200% of the poverty level and no access to group insurance; and "[m]edically eligible" people with illnesses that make them uninsurable. The proposal also would create TennCare Assist, which would offer "premium assistance" to low-income workers to purchase private health insurance (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 11/19). Although the proposal does not require the committee's approval, the panel is expected to take a nonbinding vote this week on the plan (Park, Chattanooga Times & Free Press, 12/4). Rep. Gene Caldwell (D), chair of the oversight committee, said the vote could be delayed until next week if members need more time to review the proposal (Park, Chattanooga Times & Free Press, 12/5). Legislators could prevent or delay the Sundquist administration from submitting the waiver proposal to CMS through state Comptroller John Morgan, a legislative appointee who must sign off on the plan. On Dec. 4, Morgan said he would make his decision after hearing from the oversight committee and the House Finance Committee, which is meeting next week to discuss the plan. "If the committees are not comfortable with [the plan], if they have serious objections, then I will refuse to sign it," Morgan said (Wade, Memphis Commercial Appeal, 12/5). TennCare Director Mark Reynolds said that while there is no deadline for submitting the proposal to CMS, Sundquist has made a "political commitment" to file the plan by Dec. 15 (Chattanooga Times & Free Press, 12/5).
State Watch
Minnesota Governor Announces Creation of Task Force To Examine Ways To Lower State's Health Care Costs
[Dec 05, 2001]
Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (I) announced on Dec. 3 that the state will delay consideration of proposals to cut health care costs for at least one year and instead will form a legislative task force to look at the issue, the AP/Minneapolis Star Tribune reports. Ventura said the task force will be made up of state senators and representatives who will receive advice "from a community group." The group will include former U.S. Sen. David Durenberger (R), care providers, consumers and labor and business leaders. The group's task will be to "tackle rising premiums," propose ideas to involve consumers in health care decisions and suggest strategies to "stabilize the market" through new insurance risk pools, Ventura said. Ventura, who has not said whether he will seek re-election, conceded that the move means that the state will not make "significant" changes to health care during his first term. "It's a problem that is monumental, so it's going to take awhile," he said (AP/Minneapolis Star Tribune, 12/4).
Coverage and Access
Insurers To Introduce New Fixed Account Health Plans That Could Raise Expenses for the Sickest
[Dec 05, 2001]
Several of the nation's largest health insurers are planning to introduce a new type of health plan featuring fixed accounts that are expected to result in lower costs for individuals and families with low medical bills but could lead to substantially increased costs for people with higher medical expenses, the New York Times reports. Responding to employers' concerns about rising health costs, Aetna, Humana, Cigna, UnitedHealth and Wellpoint Health Networks will roll out the new plans within the next 12 months; some have already tested the product on their own employees or other companies. Under the plans -- defined by Cigna as a "health savings account product" -- a family "typically" will pay an annual premium of between $1,000 and $1,400, "slightly lower than the cost of traditional managed care." Beneficiaries will receive an annual "allowance" of $2,000 to $3,000, to be spent as they wish on medical expenses, including prescription drugs. Families that do not spend the full allowance in a given year can roll over unspent money for future expenses. But families that exceed the allowance will have to cover the full cost of all further expenses until another cap -- sometimes up to $5,000 or more -- is reached. At that point, the employer resumes paying for medical expenses. The plans retain some features of managed care, such as that deductibles will likely be lower if beneficiaries use doctors and hospitals within the plans' networks. Risky Management? The difference between what some people with high medical expenses would pay under the new plans compared with traditional managed care plans is "striking," the Times reports. For instance, a family of three with $5,000 in medical bills and chronic conditions that require several prescription drugs could pay $5,634 per year under the new plans, compared with $3,420 under a traditional managed care plan. The effect could be most felt in the purchase of prescription drugs, because the full cost of medications, including brand-name drugs, will count against employees' yearly allowance. The new health account plans "move away" from the traditional insurance practice of spreading risk among all consumers, and instead "effectively penaliz[e] people with higher medical costs and rewar[d] those with lower costs," the Times reports. "The effect will be to shift more of the costs into the pockets of the sick people," Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University economist, said, adding, "The insurance industry has decided that if you are sick, you ought to eat the costs. It's a very dubious social policy." Deborah Chollet, an economist and health insurance specialist at Mathematica, added that the new plans could serve as a "barrier to needed care" and effectively leave some individuals without coverage in the period after the initial allowance is spent. "This is taking coverage away from people," she said. Favored by Employers But many insurance executives say the new plans have received favorable responses for employers seeking to cut down on health care costs by shifting expenses to the sickest employees. "As health care costs go up, it becomes a choice between hitting the users of the system or hitting everybody," Kenneth Sperling, a consultant at Hewitt Associates, said. Employers say that the new plans, which will feature online information to help consumers make medical decisions, will also help reduce costs by giving employees an incentive to seek out less costly health care options, such as using generic drugs or "avoid[ing] a test or treatment that their doctors says is unnecessary." In any case, the new plans are likely to become widespread over the next few years, and some employers could stop offering managed care plans altogether, the Times reports. Ronald Williams, executive vice president for Aetna, which is offering its new plan to 38,000 employees next year and will extend it to "large national customers" in 2003, said, "We view this as a product, not as an experiment" (Freudenheim, New York Times, 12/5).
HHS, HUD 'Policy Academies' Work to Improve Access to Health Care for Homeless
[Dec 05, 2001]
HHS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are jointly sponsoring two "policy academies" to focus on increasing access to "mainstream" health and human services for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The academies gather "teams" of state and territorial officials to receive advice and assistance from HHS and HUD officials and from social service experts. Teams are asked to formulate specific plans to eliminate barriers to services faced by homeless people. The first academy, which took place Nov. 26-28, focused on problems encountered by homeless families with children and was attended by representatives from Connecticut, Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington. Representatives from Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York and Puerto Rico are expected to meet in Philadelphia for the second academy, scheduled for April 9-11, 2002. This session will examine ways to assist people who are chronically homeless, focusing on those who have mental illness or substance abuse problems (HRSA release, 12/3).
Looking for a Daily Report on a specific date? Click here for instructions on how to find it.
...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
...... .....
|