People with Disabilities and the ACA

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is making health insurance coverage more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. With the passage of this law, individuals and families have more control over their care – especially individuals with disabilities. The ACA provides people with disabilities a basic protection – they can no longer be denied access to health insurance simply because of their health history.

Under the ACA, individuals like myself can no longer be denied health care because of a pre-existing condition. This is significant for the up to 129 million non-elderly Americans living with some type of pre-existing health condition such as asthma or diabetes, including 17.6 million children.

We have come a long way over the past year. All combined, in just one year, we’ve reduced the number of uninsured adults by 26%. Additionally, 76 million Americans with private health insurance are getting preventive services such as vaccines, cancer screenings, and yearly wellness visits for free. Finally, more than 7 million Americans are enrolled in the Marketplace and more than 8 million additional individuals are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, compared to last fall.

We have much to celebrate but there is work to be done. November 15 marks the beginning of the second enrollment period, which will run until February 15. The Administration is committed to ensuring that all Americans have access to coverage. The open enrollment period is a time for Americans already enrolled to re-enroll. It is also a chance for those without coverage to enroll for the first time.

Take a few minutes to watch Joey talk about what the ACA has meant for him and millions of others:

To learn more about getting covered, please visit HealthCare.gov.

By Taryn Williams
Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Posted with permission from The White House Blog 

Obamacare Enters Its Big Year for Fighting Poverty

Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), had its third birthday over this past weekend. So this is its first work week in its most important year. This is the year for the ACA’s heavy lifting, bringing affordable health coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans and ending discrimination against adults with pre-existing conditions, all effective as of January 2014. This is the year that the ACA becomes the biggest single measure in the fight against poverty in the last 50 years.
 
The ACA, of course, is usually discussed in terms of its impact on the health care system. And it is already doing a significant job on that front. In its birthday editorial, the New York Times aptly summarized the important contributions to reform of the health care system that the ACA has already produced:

• 6.6 million young adults covered through their parents’ health insurance (3 million of whom were previously uninsured);
• 71 million Americans received at least one preventive care service without co-payment (including 34 million older adults through Medicare);
• 17 million children protected from discrimination by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions;
• 3 million more patients served by community clinics due to ACA-funded expansion;
• private premium increases dramatically slowed and $1.1 billion refunded to customers due to the ACA’s limit on premiums;
• 6.3 million seniors saved $6.3 billion in spending on drugs as the ACA fills in the notorious “donut hole” co-payment requirement in Medicare;
• growth of the overall cost of the health care system dramatically slowed; and
• promising improvements in health care quality. 

That is a substantial list of accomplishments; moreover, the health care system is due for its most important improvements in the coming year. The upcoming big changes, however, will have an impact that should be understood in more than just health care terms. The progress that will be made in the fight against poverty will be truly remarkable.  

Half of the gain in covering the uninsured will be directed at people in the deepest poverty in our country. Since Medicaid began in 1965, it has had a gap. It never offered coverage to people aged 19-64 who are not officially disabled and not caring for a child in their home. 

These are young adults leaving high school or college (whose parents do not have employer-supported coverage); empty nest parents whose children are over 18; tens of thousands of veterans not covered by VA health programs (over 12,000 would gain Medicaid coverage just in my home state of Illinois); chronically unemployed people with serious mental and physical impairments who are not officially disabled; many of the homeless; and others. The ACA will fill that gap in Medicaid , providing coverage to all with income under 138% of the Federal Poverty Line ($15,415 per year for an individual and $26,344 for a family of three) in the states that choose to take the federal money that the ACA offers them to pay for it.

For many people in poverty, health coverage not only means health, reduction in pain, and expansion of life expectancy, it also means employability and productivity and upward mobility. It can improve learning capacity. It reduces family stress. It can be a major factor in reducing family and community violence. It is a vast improvement in quality of life and quality of opportunity.

The ACA also ends the high cost for Medicaid beneficiaries of making more money. Currently, when a Medicaid beneficiary succeeds in the workplace and escapes poverty, there is a penalty: the loss of health coverage when earnings exceed allowed Medicaid levels. Starting in January, though, the Healthcare Marketplaces in every state will offer affordable private insurance coverage to replace Medicaid when earnings call for termination of Medicaid eligibility. This private coverage removes a barrier to upward mobility. It also acts as a net to keep workers in the middle class if they lose employer-supported insurance, when a health emergency might otherwise mean a free-fall into poverty. And it is there to provide coverage for budding entrepreneurs who want to try for the American Dream and start their own businesses, but who currently are blocked because they cannot risk losing either Medicaid or employer-supported coverage.     

Obamacare already fights poverty by helping seniors on Medicare make ends meet and by helping young adults make their way in the workforce by staying on their parents’ insurance. And in the coming year, at least in the states that implement it thoroughly, Obamacare will make its biggest inroads against poverty.  

John Bouman
President, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

(This guest blog was originally posted here in the Shriver Brief) 

After The Election: A Consumer's Guide To The Health Law

This post originally appeared on Kaiser Health News; by Mary Agnes Carey and Jenny Gold

Now that President Barack Obama has won a second term, the Affordable Care Act is back on a fast track.

Some analysts argue that there could be modifications to reduce federal spending as part of a broader deficit deal; for now, this is just speculation. What is clear is that the law will have sweeping ramifications for consumers, state officials, employers and health care providers, including hospitals and doctors.

While some of the key features don't kick in until 2014, the law has already altered the health care industry and established a number of consumer benefits.

Here's a primer on parts of the law already up and running, what's to come and ways that provisions could still be altered.

I don't have health insurance. Under the law, will I have to buy it and what happens if I don’t?

Today, you are not required to have health insurance. But beginning in 2014, most people will have to have it or pay a fine. For individuals, the penalty would start at $95 a year, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016.

For families the penalty would be $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. The requirement to have coverage can be waived for several reasons, including financial hardship or religious beliefs.

Millions of additional people will qualify for Medicaid or federal subsidies to buy insurance under the law.

While some states, including most recently Alabama, Wyoming and Montana, have passed laws to block the requirement to carry health insurance, those provisions do not override federal law.

I get my health coverage at work and want to keep my current plan. Will I be able to do that? How will my plan be affected by the health law?

If you get insurance through your job, it is likely to stay that way. But, just as before the law was passed, your employer is not obligated to keep the current plan and may change premiums, deductibles, co-pays and network coverage.

You may have seen some law-related changes already. For example, most plans now ban lifetime coverage limits and include a guarantee that an adult child up to age 26 who can't get health insurance at a job can stay on her parents' health plan.

What other parts of the law are now in place?

You are likely to be eligible for preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs, such as breast cancer screenings and cholesterol tests.

Health plans can't cancel your coverage once you get sick – a practice known as "rescission" – unless you committed fraud when you applied for coverage.

Children with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. This will apply to adults in 2014.

Insurers will have to provide rebates to consumers if they spend less than 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care.

Some existing plans, if they haven't changed significantly since passage of the law, do not have to abide by certain parts of the law. For example, these "grandfathered" planscan still charge beneficiaries part of the cost of preventive services.

If you're currently in one of these plans, and your employer makes significant changes, such as raising your out-of-pocket costs, the plan would then have to abide by all aspects of the health law.

I want health insurance but I can’t afford it. What will I do?

Depending on your income, you might be eligible for Medicaid. Currently, in most states nonelderly adults without minor children don't qualify for Medicaid. But beginning in 2014, the federal government is offering to pay the cost of an expansion in the programs so that anyone with an income at or lower than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, (which based on current guidelines would be $14,856 for an individual or $30,656 for a family of four) will be eligible for Medicaid.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in June that states cannot be forced to make that change. Republican governors in several states have said that they will refuse the expansion, though that may change now that Obama has been re-elected.

What if I make too much money for Medicaid but still can't afford to buy insurance?

You might be eligible for government subsidies to help you pay for private insurance sold in the state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014. Exchanges will sell insurance plans to individuals and small businesses.

These premium subsidies will be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,856 to $44,680 for individuals and $30,656 to $92,200 for a family of four (based on current guidelines).

Will it be easier for me to get coverage even if I have health problems?

Insurers will be barred from rejecting applicants based on health status once the exchanges are operating in 2014.

I own a small business. Will I have to buy health insurance for my workers?

No employer is required to provide insurance. But starting in 2014, businesses with 50 or more employees that don't provide health care coverage and have at least one full-time worker who receives subsidized coverage in the health insurance exchange will have to pay a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee. The firm's first 30 workers would be excluded from the fee.

However, firms with  50 or fewer people won't face any penalties.

In addition, if you own a small business, the health law offers a tax credit to help cover the cost. Employers with 25 or fewer full-time workers who earn an average yearly salary of $50,000 or less today can get tax credits of up 35 percent of the cost of premiums. The credit increases to 50 percent in 2014.

I'm over 65. How does the legislation affect seniors?

The law is narrowing a gap in the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan known as the "doughnut hole." That's when seniors who have paid a certain initial amount in prescription costs have to pay for all of their drug costs until they spend a total of $4,700 for the year. Then the plan coverage begins again.

That coverage gap will be closed entirely by 2020. Seniors will still be responsible for 25 percent of their prescription drug costs. So far, 5.6 million seniors have saved $4.8 billion on prescription drugs, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The law also expanded Medicare's coverage of preventive services, such as screenings for colon, prostate and breast cancer, which are now free to beneficiaries. Medicare will also pay for an annual wellness visit to the doctor. HHS reports that during the first nine months of 2012, more than 20.7 million Medicare beneficiaries have received preventive services at no cost.

The health law reduced the federal government's payments to Medicare Advantage plans, run by private insurers as an alternative to the traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage costs more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare. Critics of those payment cuts say that could mean the private plans may not offer many extra benefits, such as free eyeglasses, hearing aids and gym memberships, that they now provide.

Will I have to pay more for my health care because of the law?

No one knows for sure. Even supporters of the law acknowledge its steps to control health costs, such as incentives to coordinate care better, may take a while to show significant savings. Opponents say the law’s additional coverage requirements will make health insurance more expensive for individuals and for the government.

That said, there are some new taxes and fees. For example, starting in 2013, individuals with earnings above $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000 will paya Medicare payroll tax of 2.35 percent, up from the current 1.45 percent, on income over those thresholds. In addition, higher-income people will face a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income, such as dividends and interest.

Starting in 2018, the law also will impose a 40 percent excise tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage (excluding dental and vision) that exceeds $10,200 a year and $27,500 for families. The tax has been dubbed a "Cadillac" tax because it hits the most generous plans.

In addition, the law also imposes taxes and fees on several major health industries. Beginning in 2013, medical device manufacturers and importers must pay a 2.3 percent tax on the sale of any taxable medical device to raise $29 billion over 10 years. An annual fee for health insurers is expected to raise more than $100 billion over 10 years, while a fee for brand name drugs will bring in another $34 billion.

Those fees will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher premiums.

Has the law hit some bumps in the road?

Yes. For example, the law created high-risk insurance pools to help people purchase health insurance. But enrollment in the pools has been less than expected. As of Aug. 31, 86,072 people had signed up for the high-risk pools, but the program, which began in June 2010, was initially expected to enroll between 200,000 and  400,000 people. The cost and the requirements have been difficult for some to meet.

Applicants must be uninsured for six months because of a pre-existing medical condition before they can join a pool. And because participants are sicker than the general population, the premiums are higher.

Enrollment has increased since the summer, after the premiums were lowered in some states by as much as 40 percent and some states stepped up advertising.

A long-term care provision of the law is dead for now. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program (CLASS Act) was designed for people to buy federally guaranteed insurance that would have helped consumers eventually cover some long-term-care costs. But last fall, federal officials effectively suspended the program even before it was to begin, saying they could not find a way to make it work financially.

Are there more changes ahead for the law?

Some observers think there could be pressure in Congress to make some changes to the law as a larger package to reduce the deficit. Among those options is scaling back the subsidies that help low-income Americans buy health insurance coverage. The amount of the subsidies, and possibly the Medicaid expansion as well, could be reduced.  

It’s also possible that some of the taxes on the health care industry, which help pay for the new benefits in the health law, could be rolled back. For example, legislation to repeal the tax on medical device manufacturers passed the House with support from 37 Democrats (it is not expected to receive Senate consideration this year). Nine House Democrats are co-sponsoring legislation to repeal the law’s annual fee on health insurers.

Meanwhile, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), one of the most contentious provisions of the health law, is also under continued attack by lawmakers. IPAB is a 15-member panel charged with making recommendations to reduce Medicare spending if the amount the government spends grows beyond a target rate. If Congress chooses not to accept the recommendations, lawmakers must pass alternative cuts of the same size.

Some Republicans argue that the board amounts to health care rationing and some Democrats have said that they think the panel would transfer power that belongs on Capitol Hill to the executive branch. In March, the House voted to repeal IPAB.

The Outlook for "Obamacare" in Two Maps

By Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein; originally posted at ProPublica, Nov. 8, 2012, 10:30 a.m.

It wasn't just President Barack Obama who won Tuesday. His signature health care plan did as well. But while the Affordable Care Act remains alive, less clear is how its various mandates will proceed and who will participate.
To a large extent, the success of the health overhaul lies in how many of the nation's uninsured get coverage. And that is largely in the hands of the states, which have been all over the map in their willingness to cooperate.
We mean that literally. The maps here show the lack of consensus on two key parts of the act: Creating insurance exchanges and expanding Medicaid.
Here's why each map matters.

Map 1: Where Will We Buy Insurance?

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, current as of Sept. 27, 2012.

The health care act requires all Americans who aren't already insured to buy coverage. But where? That's where insurance exchanges come in.
States have to decide whether to set up these online marketplaces, where individuals can choose among different insurance plans. Setting up an exchange allows states to customize the offerings to the needs of their residents.
States can also partner with the federal government on exchanges. But if they elect not to, the federal government will take over with its one-size-fits all exchange. States are supposed to decide which course to take by Nov. 16.
Along the West coast, legislatures have already voted to set up exchanges. Other states, including Texas, Maine and Alaska, have decided to punt.
But many states in the Midwest and South haven't committed either way. Some governors, such as New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie, have held off setting up a state insurance exchange until after the election.
A health care consultant group predicted yesterday that 20 states will elect to operate exchanges.

Map 2: Will States Cover More Poor People?

Source: The Advisory Board Company
Obamacare hopes to expand coverage to 30 million of the country's 48 million uninsured residents. A big part of that would come though Medicaid.
States must also decide whether to expand Medicaid to all residents under 133 percent of the federal poverty line (about $14,893 for an individual and $30,657 for a family of four).  Medicaid currently covers poor children, pregnant women, seniors and some disabled adults. The federal government will pay the full cost for the expanded coverage for three years, and then gradually reduce its contribution to 90 percent over the next three years.
As passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act required states to expand Medicaid or risk losing all federal matching funds for the program. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that it was coercive to force states to expand their program just to keep money they were already getting.
Now, states that don't opt in will keep their current funding, but residents who might have qualified under an expansion will likely remain uninsured. There isn't a deadline for the expansion, but the federal government says states will receive less federal help if they decide to expand later, according to The New York Times.
As with exchanges, the states are divided.
So far, a handful u2013 including California, Washington and Illinois u2013 have already embraced the expansion. Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana have opted out.
(The states marked with scales participated in litigation against the Act that culminated in June's U.S. Supreme Court decision.)

Too Murky to Map  
Not everything is left to states. Other issues remain murky about the law, perhaps because the deadlines are further in the future.
The requirement for individuals to either buy insurance or pay a fee to the IRS begins Jan. 14, 2014. But the federal government has not made clear how vigorously it plans to pursue those who don't comply.
Here's a flow chart showing who has to pay and who doesn't.
Also unclear is the impact on employers, who will be required to provide health insurance to full-time workers beginning in 2014. Some, according to The Wall Street Journal, are responding by moving employees to part-time positions.
Finally, the Act's opponents in Congress and on the grassroots level will likely do what they can to delay or dilute these requirements, which are among its most unpopular.
If you're interested in comparing the politics further, here's a link to the final presidential election results by state.
Help Us Investigate Patient Safety Have you or a loved one been harmed in a medical facility? Share your story with us. Are you a provider? Tell us your observations about patient harm.

Debunking Obamacare Myths

Dr. Barbara Bellar, a senate candidate from Burr Ridge, Illinois, has become a recent YouTube sensation with her humorous critique of the health reform law. In her "Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence" speech, Bellar raised some serious complaints about the Affordable Care Act. Since Dr. Bellar is running for office in our home state, we decided that some myth-busting was in order. Christopher Wills' article in SFGate does a great job of fact checking Bellars' video, so we'll summarize his article here:  

What exactly did this senate candidate say about the Affordable Care Act?

We're going to be gifted with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't
 
Fact: For those who already have health insurance, there will be no change, and will not be forced to buy any additional coverage. For those who can afford and refuse to purchase coverage will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a tax.Those who can't afford insurance will not be required to pay a fine. 

The ACA doesn't add a single new doctor

Fact: Let there be doctors! The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates the addition of 15,000 new providers by 2015. The ACA also incentivizes a career in primary care by offering primary care doctors higher medicare payments. Still, Dr. Bellar is right that expanding coverage will put some new demands on the health care system.

The law provides for 16,000 new IRS agents

Fact: No. This claim has been proven to be wildly inaccurate. According to FactCheck.org: "The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation."

Congress exempted themselves from the ACA
 
Fact: Congress members are REQUIRED to buy their insurance through the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, thus, not exempting themselves at all.
 
We will be taxed for four years before any ACA benefits take effect

Fact: Some taxes have been put in place since 2010 (when the ACA became law); according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the taxes taking effect before 2014 affect specific groups such as drug makers, medical device manufacturers, couples earning over $250,000/year and indoor tanners.

Fact: The pre-2014 benefits have been pouring in and are already positively impacting millions of people, right here in Illinois. They include: young adults who are able to stay on their parents' insurance plan until age 26; small businesses who now can use tax credits to provide health care to employees; seniors who are receiving refund checks to fill the gap in their Medicare drug coverage; uninsured people with pre-existing conditions who are now covered by the Illinois Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan; and people with private insurance whose preventive services are covered with no deductible or co-pay.

These initial changes are just a small example of what's to come in 2014.

If you want to see how the expansions will impact the uninsured in Illinois in 2014, take a look at our Visualizing Health Reform map with census data. You can even zoom into Dr. Bellar's community, Burr Ridge (a town that spans DuPage and Cook Counties), and see who in her district will be newly eligible for Medicaid and affordable private insurance in the Health Insurance Exchange.

And that's a fact.
 
Dana Rabkin & Stephani Becker
Illinois Health Matters

For more myth-busting about the ACA, you can go to www.illinoishealthmatters.org. You can also submit a question and one of our ACA experts will answer it for you!

Expanding Medicaid: The Choice is Clear

The Supreme Court on June 28^th ruled that while the federal Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion is constitutional, in the event that a state does not implement the expansion, it would be unconstitutional to withdraw all Medicaid funding from that state. The ruling appears to leave intact both the mandatory nature of the expansion and the other remedies that the federal Medicaid authorities might use to enforce it. The states, however, might view the removal of the most aggressive remedy (full Medicaid defunding) as opening up some additional degree of choice about whether to forego the expansion and risk whatever lesser penalties federal authorities may impose (such as a partial withholding of funds). In Illinois, as in any other state, it is clear that expanding the Medicaid program on schedule in 2014 is by far the smart and right thing to do, regardless of the potential federal penalties for not expanding.

1.  The ACA’s expansion is aimed at covering some of the most vulnerable low-income adults who are otherwise unable to afford private insurance. Not all low-income Illinoisans are currently eligible for Medicaid. Instead, right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a low-income person must fit into a “category,” such as being 65 or over, or totally and permanently disabled, or pregnant, or a child under age 19, or a parent or caretaker relative of a child under age 19. But if you are a single, childless, non-disabled adult without a penny to your name, you do not qualify for Medicaid. This expansion adds another category—having household income less than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which would apply to an estimated 500,000 individuals in Illinois. People in a wide range of circumstances will belong to the “newly eligible” group. Many will be low-wage, part-time workers. Some will be unemployed, either recent or long term. Some will have health conditions that, if addressed by consistent medical care, could and would allow them to get jobs. Some are really destitute, even homeless. Some are young adults, perhaps having aged off Medicaid, which they received as children, but are not fortunate enough to have parents with insurance that would cover them until they turn 26. Others are middle-aged or close to 65. Some are people who had insurance coverage, but lost it through changes in circumstances such as job loss or divorce. 

Of the newly eligible population in Illinois, an estimated 431,000 Illinoisans with household incomes less than 100% FPL will be left in the cold without the Medicaid expansion. The ACA envisioned that these folks would qualify for Medicaid. That’s why the federal subsidy to help pay for private insurance premiums starts at 100% FPL and goes to 400% FPL. So, without the Medicaid expansion, these folks will likely be priced out of affordable health insurance through the Exchange because they won’t qualify for the federal financial help (unless they are lawfully residing residents ineligible for Medicaid). They will have to continue to access safety-net providers and emergency rooms for care, driving up costs for these providers and showing up sicker. And, these folks are still held responsible under the individual mandate to prove insurance coverage or why they are exempt.

2.  Minimal state investment will reap overwhelming benefit. The ACA increased the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rates for the newly eligible individuals under the expansion to 100 percent for calendar years 2014 through 2016, and then gradually declining to 90 percent in 2020 where it remains indefinitely. By 2020, when Illinois will pay just 10 percent of the cost of care for this new population, the annual state cost is estimated at $157 million. (This is 10% of the current cost per adult beneficiary in Illinois, $3,157, times 500,000 new beneficiaries). But even as this cost will rise due to inflation, it will also be offset by benefits such as larger state tax revenues from increased employment and provider income and an increased insured population. It will also be offset by increased efficiencies due to the new system to simplify and coordinate eligibility and enrollment for Medicaid and the Exchange, which is nearly entirely paid for by the federal government. It may also be offset by the stabilization of the health of almost half of the newly eligible population in the event that the federal government gives permission for Cook County to expand Medicaid early, this year or next. If Cook County is allowed to expand Medicaid early, an estimated 250,000 folks will have medical homes and coordinated care, which would likely stabilize chronic conditions, prevent disabilities, and therefore reduce future Medicaid costs. Finally, state costs can be further minimized by increasing efficiency through care coordination initiatives, especially for persons with chronic conditions and for dual eligibles (persons eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare). The Lewin Group estimates that the ACA will increase Illinois’s Medicaid spending by just 2.8% between 2014 and 2019. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ACA would impose less than a 1% increase in state Medicaid costs.  Moreover, these high federal matching rates are highly likely to stay. In Medicaid’s close to 50-year history, Congress has never decreased FMAP levels in Medicaid other than to allow the expiration of temporary FMAP increases enacted as parts of stimulus packages in recessions. The more states that adopt the “newly eligibles” expansion, the more members of Congress who will resist any reduction below 90% down the line. In fact, with sufficient support, Congress could amend the matching rate, keeping it at 100% indefinitely.

3. Expanding Medicaid creates jobs. We know from our recent past that an increased federal matching rate in the Medicaid program has an enormously significant economic impact—called amultiplier effect—throughout the economy and positively impacts jobs. When Congress included an increase in the federal Medicaid matching rate in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from 50% to 61.88% from October 2008 through December 2010, $1.2 billion per year for that period flowed into Illinois. For FY 2009, one estimate places the value of the wages generated from the Medicaid program that included the enhanced match as high as $15.8 billion, supporting as many as 385,742 jobs. The job growth and wages generated are likely to be much more substantial under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, since the federal matching rate under the ACA is 100% from 2014 through 2016 and an additional roughly 500,000 newly eligible Medicaid patientsare expected to enroll. State and local revenue increases when Illinois residents pay income, sales, and other taxes generated by the federal funding for the Medicaid expansion; this revenue would offset much, perhaps all, of the additional costs.

4. Participating in the Medicaid expansion will help stabilize the state budget. The budget is critically dependent on federal Medicaid funding. The Illinois Medicaid program is by far the largest source of federal revenues to the state. Federal funds also support the Department of Human Services, Department on Aging, Department of Children and Family Services, local public health departments, Cook County Health and Hospitals Systems, Illinois’s state universities, and local school districts’ special education programs, among others. The Medicaid expansion will provide crucial federal funds across the state and local governments to support programs now being delivered to the expansion population with no federal funds, or being withheld from that population due to lack of funds.

5. We pay for the health care for the uninsured in any event, so let’s use federal dollars to pay for their current uncompensated care. A Kaiser and Urban Institute report on state spending under the expansion found that under the expansion, by 2019, Illinois would have reduced its number of uninsured adults in this newly eligible population by over 42% with the federal government paying for over 94% of the cost. This could translate into a decrease in Illinois’s uncompensated care spending of as much as $1.5 billion. And any cost to the state will be there, whether or not Illinois takes the money provided for the expansion. Working Illinoisans in low-wage jobs without insurance still get sick, still get injured. But without the federal dollars from the Medicaid expansion, other Illinoisans with insurance will still have to pick up the cost of their care, to the tune of $1,000 per year in increased annual premiums. And local property taxes are strained to support the township medical assistance programs and safety net health systems that provide care for low-income uninsured people now. In fact, currently over $400 million in services for uncompensated care is being provided annually by just one hospital: Cook County’s Stroger Hospital. 

6. Illinois hospitals need the Medicaid payments to offset reductions in federal funds in other areas. Targeted hospital subsidies, known as disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments, will decline under the Affordable Care Act. The reduction was justified on the theory that the Medicaid expansion will eliminate the need for DSH subsidies by greatly reducing the burden of uncompensated care. If hospitals lose those payments, and the loss is not made up by the expansion of Medicaid, it will devastate not only hospitals, but entire communities. Many Illinois hospitals, especially in rural areas, simply are not viable if their DSH subsidies decline without being replaced by expanded Medicaid. Hospitals are among the largest employers in their communities. When a hospital closes, the community not only loses a major employer, but providers leave too, and then the community has great difficulty recruiting new industry. Additionally, expanding Medicaid will ensure that Illinois’s medical providers will have the financial support coming from the Medicaid expansion to offset the ACA’s Medicare payment reductions. Doctors and hospitals are counting on the Medicaid expansion (which will bring in revenue for services to the newly eligible and reduce the need for uncompensated care) to be in place as the Medicare payment changes are phased in.

7. Expanded coverage is the linchpin for the big picture reforms that will deliver both better health outcomes and lower costs. Coverage requires an investment (which the federal government virtually entirely funds under the ACA). But the investment will yield returns. Coverage makes possible arelationship with a regular medical provider. That, in turn, facilitates prevention, wellness advice, early detection of conditions, maintenance care (avoiding acute care), a platform for the full use of health information technology that avoids duplication and mistakes and spreads best practices, and care coordination. Coverage thus addresses the cost of health care by improving health outcomes across the system. This overall downward bending of the cost curve helps all of us, not just the newly insured. 

8. Federal Medicaid dollars will finally be paying for behavioral and mental health services for Medicaid enrollees. Under the ACA, the newly eligible population will have a benefit package that includes mental health and behavioral health services. These are costs now being borne by state and local funds, or else the services are simply not being provided—with impact on emergency rooms, state institutions and the criminal justice system. These state and local costs will be replaced with federally funded Medicaid.

9. Illinois’s veterans deserve health insurance. Not all veterans are able to get care at a Veterans Affairs hospital. And, in fact, roughly 43,000 Illinois veterans are uninsured (along with 25,000 of their family members). Illinois needs to take care of veterans, and the ACA’s Medicaid expansion will do just that. At implementation in 2014, nearly half of uninsured veterans will likely qualify forexpanded Medicaid coverage. Illinois should serve these veterans, just like they served its citizens.

10. Does Illinois really want to subsidize health care in other states? As Justice Scalia stated in his dissent, “Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion.” So if Illinois does not take advantage of the federal 100%/90% funding for the Medicaid expansion, other states that chose to expand will get the benefit of Illinoisans’ federal tax dollars.

11. Expanding Medicaid coverage helps the financial viability of community clinics.Clinics are our best—really only—strategy for providing health care to the uninsured outside of emergency rooms. There will still be plenty of uninsured after the ACA is implemented, plus many of the newly insured Medicaid beneficiaries will get their care from clinics. The only way that clinics can serve the uninsured is by serving a critical percentage of patients who have coverage. The Medicaid reimbursement for covered patients allows the clinic to also serve the uninsured. With a high percentage of patients covered, the clinics will be able to expand capacity to serve the uninsured as well as those newly coverage by Medicaid.   

12. The Medicaid expansion is simply the right thing to do. We have a chance, through the incredible leveraging of federal funds, to provide health coverage—and the chance for better health and upward mobility—to hundreds of thousands of our state’s most vulnerable, needy residents. We can create a system that expands its circle of moral concern to include the uninsured, recognizing as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in N.F.I.B. v. Sebelius, that “[v]irtually everyone … consumes health care at some point in his or her life.”


Andrea Kovach
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

(Original post can be found here at The Shriver Brief)

The Anticipated Fate of the Affordable Care Act: Post-Decision Resources

The long history of health care reform in the United States has finally arrived at the hands of the Supreme Court. Since its passing in March of 2010, the Affordable Care Act has stirred the nation with questions as well as uncertainties for its promising future. As we are just a day away from the long awaited outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the health care law’s constitutionality, it is crucial to maintain contact with the future implications of the ACA. Here is a list of a few resources to stay connected post decision, to make sure we keep moving forward and stay informed on healthcare reform in Illinois as well as nationwide.

Be sure to check back with Illinois Health Matters on Facebook and Twitter to keep up with additional Illinois-specific next steps!

Supreme Court of the United States Blog – providing up to date information as well as live blogging on what’s going on at the Supreme Court, with special focus on the ACA
http://www.scotusblog.com/

Families USA Conference Call: Supreme Court Decision and Beyond
http://fusa.convio.net/site/Calendar/451929173?view=Detail&id=100921

Supreme Court Decision: The Future of Small Business & Healthcare
http://www.eventbrite.com/event/3678909718

Statewide Conference Call - Campaign for Better Health Care
http://www.cbhconline.org/action/conferencecalls/ccall-registration/

Jaquelene Peysakhovich
Illinois Health Matters

In Short: SCOTUS and the ACA

For three days this week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The case against the ACA is broken up into four main arguments, primarily on the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion. The historic health law case has made a splash across Capitol Hill and beyond; and the responses range from adversarial to insightful to amusing and back:

The New York Times profiles Jonathan Gruber, the M.I.T. professor responsible for the academic research and number-crunching behind the ACA’s individual mandate.

CommonHealth’s Carey Goldberg talks with Kevin Outterson, director of Boston University’s Health Law Program and a frequent contributor to the Incidental Economist, on the court hearing, and then turns the conversation into a humorous animated video.

AHIP compiled various independent studies on the negative impact of severing the Individual Mandate from the ACA in this infographic.

For those who want to go straight to the source, download the audio recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments from March 26th, March 27th and March 28th.

The Supreme Court will announce its decision by the end of June, at which point, the bill will be handed back to Congress. Will this Congress, notoriously unable to come to agreement across party lines, be up to the challenge? The Hill Health Watch reports.

No matter what happens, Illinois Health still Matters; the State will be transitioning Medicaid into managed care, providers will be challenged to develop new payment models, and we still need to innovate to effectively serve vulnerable populations in tough fiscal times.

The Supreme Court Challenge to the ACA

From March 26 to 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., the historic challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act brought by the attorneys general of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. No case has been allotted this much time for argument since the 19th century.

Since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in March 2010, dozens of legal cases have been filed against the law. Most cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds. Of the small number of cases that have gotten past procedural hurdles, four cases have reached the Courts of Appeals.

Of those cases, three courts have rejected challenges to the law (the Sixth Circuit and the DC Circuit upheld the law entirely, and the Fourth Circuit found the challenge to be premature under the Anti-Injunction Act). However, in the Eleventh Circuit, in a case brought by the attorneys general of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the court found the personal responsibility provision to be unconstitutional. However, that court left the rest of the law in place and specifically found the Medicaid expansion constitutional.

The federal government has appealed the decision striking down the personal responsibility provision. The states and National Federation of Independent Businesses have appealed the parts of the decision that upheld the Medicaid expansion and that left the rest of the law in place. No party is arguing that the case against the personal responsibility provision is premature under the Anti-Injunction Act—the Supreme Court has decided on its own to consider that question.

The Campaign for Better Health Care hopes that the justices fully consider the legal precedents that have already been set in similar cases and find that the law is constitutional. We want to see this law given the full stamp of approval of the highest court in the land so that instead of wasting time playing politics around the Affordable Care Act, lawmakers move ahead to implement it.

The central questions here are: What kind of a country do we want to live in? What values do we have as Americans? This isn't a policy debate, it is a philosophical one. The arguments at the core of it are "you're on your own" versus "taking personal responsibility for the common good of your family and America." Our nation was built on the ideals of personal responsibility and working for the common good of our country. Those are the ideals that Obamacare promotes.

The Affordable Care Act protects and offers all Americans the opportunity to obtain quality, affordable health care. People like the consumer protections in the law. They do not want to give up the vital protections that the Affordable Care Act provides them and go back to being at the mercy of insurance companies. Striking down the Affordable Care Act would take away protections that Americans already have or are about to gain, including:

* rules already prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people, including children, with pre-existing conditions

* tax credits that are already helping small businesses provide coverage to their employees

* rules prohibiting insurers from canceling coverage when people get sick

* rules prohibiting insurers from dropping young adults from their parents’ coverage

* rules prohibiting insurers from imposing annual or lifetime caps on coverage

* improved prescription drug coverage and preventive benefits for seniors and people with disabilities who rely on Medicare

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional, having already been upheld by multiple courts, including by leading conservative judges. If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, it will uphold the law. Three separate Circuit Courts of Appeal have rejected challenges to the law, with two of these decisions including opinions written by leading conservative judges.

The law is constitutional because Congress has broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. This authority comes from the Constitution’s commerce clause and necessary and proper clause and has been undisputed in Supreme Court rulings dating back at least 75 years. Legal precedent has been well established in this case, so let's move on already.

The Affordable Care Act is fair. The personal responsibility provision is a common-sense rule that will ultimately affect about 1 percent of Americans, and the 83 percent of Americans who already have health insurance (for example, through their jobs or through Medicare) will not be affected by it. Most people without health insurance want coverage but cannot get it, either because they cannot afford it or they are denied it due to their pre-existing conditions. The Affordable Care Act makes coverage affordable and eliminates exclusions for pre-existing conditions. When these people get coverage, they will not be subject to the penalty either.

It is estimated that, at most, 1 percent of the population will refuse to buy coverage and will not qualify for an exemption (for example, for religious reasons or economic hardship). These people should pay their fair share and get coverage before they get sick; waiting until they get sick to get coverage only shifts the cost of their care onto everyone else.

All big changes to our national priorities and policies generate opposition. The Social Security Act in the 1930s and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s were bitterly attacked at the time they were passed. The Social Security Act and Civil Rights Act were even declared unconstitutional by lower courts before the Supreme Court upheld them. Now these laws are part of the fabric of American society. The same will happen with the Affordable Care Act.

Jim Duffett
CBHC Executive Director

# # #

About the Campaign for Better Health Care

We believe that accessible, affordable, quality health care is a basic human right for ALL people. The Campaign for Better Health Care is the state’s largest coalition representing over 300 diverse organizations, organizing to help create and advocate for an accessible, quality health care system for all. For more information, visit www.cbhconline.org.

The Affordable Care Act Turns 2: Help Tell the Story that #HealthCareWorks

This Friday, March 23rd marks the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. All across the country, advocacy groups will celebrate the law with educational events to help tell the story that #HealthCareWorks.

As the law heads to the Supreme Court on March 26th, we need to tell the stories of the millions of Illinois residents who are benefiting from the law. Taking away these benefits will have a disastrous impact – especially on seniors, women, young adults, children and small business owners.

Here in Illinois:

• More than 1.3 million Illinois seniors received free preventative care including mammograms and colonoscopies in 2011.Nearly 2.4 million Illinoisans with private health insurance gained coverage of free preventative medical care with no co-pays.
• 144,226 people on Medicare saved more than $96 million on prescription drugs because of the new law.
• 1,962 Illinoisans who were denied health insurance now have coverage through the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.
• A growing number of small businesses offering health insurance are taking advantage of new tax credits allowed under the law.

This week, you can help spread the word that health care works and real people would suffer if the Affordable Care Act is scaled back or repealed. Use #HealthCareWorks on Twitter to share stories and statistics that demonstrate how the law has already helped provide better care and lower costs. Write a letter to the editor. Send a message to your representatives in Congress. We can’t afford to go backwards when it comes to better, more affordable health care.

Angela Benander
Know Your Care Illinois

Health Reform's Best-Kept Secret

The Basic Health Program could bring more affordable, more reliable coverage to millions of adults--and improve access to care for children, too.

For all the attention devoted to the Affordable Care Act, scant consideration has been paid to a little-known part of it called the Basic Health Program. It's an option for states that could, if implemented nationwide, make health care coverage more affordable and accessible for more than 5 million adults and bring health coverage to more than 600,000 who would not otherwise have it.  Because many of these adults are likely parents of Medicaid- and CHIP-eligible children, the Basic Health Program could improve coverage and access to care for low-income children as well.

Most Say Ahhh! readers likely know how it works, but here's a quick recap of the Basic Health Program: under health reform, low-income people without health coverage will receive federal subsidies starting in 2014 to buy health insurance through Exchanges. States that implement the Basic Health Program in addition to an Exchange would contract with health plans or networks of doctors and hospitals to provide health care to people with incomes up to twice the Federal poverty line--just under $22,000 for a single adult--who don't qualify for publicly-financed programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. The Basic Health Program would replace subsidized coverage through Exchanges for this lower-income population. Washington would pitch in by providing states with 95 percent of the tax credits and subsidies that would have otherwise been provided through health reform.

According to an Urban Institute paper commissioned by our organization, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, costs for subsidized health coverage through the Exchange are projected to cost low-income individuals more than $1,650 per year in premiums, copays and deductibles. For most people, that's a terrific deal. But for someone making $22,000 a year, $1,650 is nearly a month's pay. Many could well forgo coverage through the Exchange, pay a tax penalty of up to $700 and apply the difference to food, rent, or electricity. While health reform goes a long way towards making coverage more affordable through Exchanges and subsidies, health coverage may remain out of reach for some people with low incomes.

But if states were to implement the Basic Health Program to provide coverage modeled on Medicaid and CHIP, the Urban Institute estimates that annual premiums and out-of-pocket costs for adults would drop from a combined $1,650 to just under $200. At that level of affordability, paying the tax penalty makes no sense. The Urban Institute estimates that 600,000 people who would otherwise not purchase insurance would do so if all states ran a Basic Health Program. That's reason for cheer on its own.

Better still, the Basic Health Program could help more children access coverage and care in two ways. First, covering more adults will help children. While the Basic Health program would primarily cover adults in 2014 (Medicaid and CHIP handle low-income children), the lower premiums and reduced cost-sharing that could happen under BHP for adults would help children, as research has suggested a link between parents' insurance status and their children's access to care.

It could also serve as a backstop: should Congress not authorize new funding for CHIP in 2015, the Basic Health Program could serve as a bridge program for children, providing them with CHIP-like coverage rather than coverage through an Exchange. Finally, children who are prohibited from receiving Medicaid or CHIP coverage because of the 'five year bar' could be covered by the Basic Health Program. CHIPRA in 2009 gave states the option of covering these kids, but only six states had done so as of January 2011.

The Basic Health Program remains a work in progress, and there's work yet to be done: the Department of Health and Human Services must provide states guidance on several issues that will affect how states tailor their Basic Health Programs--notably, clarification of the mechanisms for calculating and delivering Federal funds. States must ensure that reimbursement levels for health plans and providers are high enough to attract an adequate number of participating physicians to meet demand for services generated by the program. While some analysts have questioned whether the Basic Health Program could adversely impact Exchanges, policy solutions could be found to address these impacts if they do occur.

The Basic Health Program represents the best health reform has to offer: more affordable and accessible care for millions of Americans, including parents and their children, and up to 600,000 fewer uninsured.

Given the financial pressures felt in statehouses across the country--and the professed desire by leaders on both sides of the aisle for affordable health options--the Basic Health Program deserves a long, close look. Governors, Medicaid directors and state legislatures across the country owe it to the people they serve to give Basic Health Program serious consideration.

Because this program is simply too promising to be kept a secret.

By Meg Murray and Jenny Babcock,Association for Community Affiliated Plans

This post originally appeared in Say Ahhh! A Children’s Health Policy Blog.