Let’s Make Sure the Affordable Care Act Lives Up to Its Name

Low-income workers received a potentially devastating blow when the US Supreme Court decided to strike down the provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) penalizing states that do not expand access to Medicaid to families earning up to 133% of the poverty line. Unless states voluntarily expand Medicaid, many low-income workers will be left to shoulder the cost of mandated insurance on their own because few are likely to be covered through their employer.

According to the administrative rules for the ACA, employers (with 50 or more employees) have to pay a “shared responsibility fee” only when they neglect to cover full-time employees. Under this new law, full-time employees are defined as those who average 30 or more hours per week, and employers are granted ample leeway in defining the time period on which eligibility is based. Research I’ve conducted in several industries indicates that work hours in today’s hourly jobs are often scarce, with many workers expressing a preference for additional hours of work for additional pay. Because employers condition access to benefits on job status and hours worked, hourly workers, especially part-time workers, are often excluded from company-sponsored health insurance. The ACA is unlikely to do much to extend employer-sponsored coverage to hourly workers and may even heighten their risk of poverty given the incentive to employers to keep work hours below 30 a week.

Let’s make sure the Affordable Care Act lives up to its name by encouraging Governor Quinn and our legislators to voluntarily expand Medicaid. Because the federal government will pick up over 90% of the tab for the expansion, it makes good fiscal sense for both Illinois taxpayers and Illinois families.

Susan Lambert
Associate Professor
School of Social Service Administration
University of Chicago

(Portions of this letter were published in the Chicago Tribune, July 6 Voice of the People here)

Five Reasons Why States Should Act Quickly to Set Up Health Insurance Exchanges

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, we know that insurers will no longer be able to deny people coverage or charge them more based on their health status or gender, subsidies will be available to help people with low and moderate incomes afford coverage, and a state or federal exchange will be operating in every state in 2014.

A number of states are well on their way to establishing their own exchanges. But many other states instead have dragged their feet, citing uncertainty prior to the high court’s ruling (see map). With last Thursday’s decision, however, states can no longer use that excuse as grounds to avoid implementing the law. States that have said they prefer to operate their own insurance exchanges (rather than have the federal government run the exchanges for them) must act quickly.



Five reasons why states should start or resume planning activities immediately:

1. Deadlines are approaching – quickly. States must officially notify the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by November 16, 2012 – that is, in less than five months – of their intention to operate a state-based exchange and submit an application for federal approval of the exchange’s design and operations.

2. Applications alone won’t be enough. States seeking approval of their exchange proposal have to demonstrate sufficient progress to HHS by January 1, 2013 in order to prove that their state does not need a federally run exchange.

3. Operations will start before 2014. Exchanges – whether state- or federally run – will have to start enrolling individuals, families, and small businesses by October 1, 2013. States operating an exchange will also need to ensure they can determine eligibility for federal premium and cost-sharing subsidies available to individuals with low and moderate incomes who will buy coverage through the exchange. They also must be able to coordinate with their state Medicaid and CHIP programs. This means that new and improved information technology systems must be developed and tested.

4. Key policy decisions will take time. States must decide how they’ll approach and implement a wide variety of policies, such as financing operations of the exchange after 2014, selecting health plans to be sold in the exchange, conducting outreach and education to consumers, and developing services to attract small businesses.

5. Federal grant funds are available to fully fund states’ exchange set-up costs. States can apply for and receive federal funds that will finance all costs related to the design and launch of their exchanges. The funds can be used to conduct research on their insurance market, develop or upgrade their IT systems, hire and train staff, as well as support all operating costs for the exchange’s first year. The grants will be provided through 2014, as long as funds are available. But the sooner states access the funds, the sooner they can put them to work – and increase their chances of meeting all of the important implementation deadlines.

Despite these factors, leaders in several states responded to the Supreme Court decision by continuing to delay their own decisions on whether to move forward and create a state-based exchange. Because of the time crunch, this foot-dragging could effectively be a decision in itself – to forgo any chance of operating an exchange themselves and instead default to an exchange set up by the federal government.

Dave Chandra
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

(Original post can be found here on the Off the Charts Blog)

Scariest thing in the world

Wes Craven has certainly tried hard over the years to give us scary. Joss Whedon sprinkled it with humor. Edgar Allen Poe taught us all some lessons in horror.

Then there is real scary. The kind you don't find in books or movies. The slow fear that doesn't have a release in a moment involving some guy in a mask.

For two years, I was a diabetic without health insurance. Doesn't sound like the kind of thing John Carpenter would toss out there for 90 minutes, does it? But it is, without a doubt, the scariest thing on Earth.

I was laid off in 2008, one week precisely before Lehman Brothers crumbled and the global economy with it. While I was offered COBRA and searched desperately for some way to keep my insurance, there was nothing I could qualify for as a diabetic for less than $700 a month. Unemployment insurance only added up to about $1400 a month, so to pay for insurance, I'd have to skip rent or utilities or food.

Medicaid was no help either. Illinois is a great state, but our Medicaid system here is currently set up to help only the lowest of the low. I "made too much money" on unemployment, even as a diabetic, to qualify for the program.

Yet without insurance, insulin, the very thing I need to take multiple times a day just to live, would cost me insane amounts of money. I take two types of insulin. Each bottle of insulin lasts me about two to three weeks. Each bottle without insurance costs over $110-120. It would cost me over $450 a month just for my insulin. That doesn't begin to take into account the syringes, the other pills I take to help control aspects of my health as a diabetic, or any of the other conditions that I have related to my diabetes or not.

Taking care of my health looked impossible. I was lucky though. I had some amazing doctors and nurses that did everything they could to get me insulin, that helped me navigate the systems to eventually get set up for charity care where we could, and even cajoled a few pharmacy reps I think into making sure I survived. I would not be here but for their incredible hard work and help.

Despite all that hard work, it was still not always enough. I had to pay out of pocket once, early on when I still had a small emergency reserve of money, and visit the emergency room three times to get insulin when we couldn't get it fast enough from our various alternate sources. That's three ER visits that the state had to pay for, and therefore, in the end, you footed the bill through your tax dollars in the most inefficient way possible.

The Affordable Care Act changed all of that. I was one of the first to sign up for the "high-risk pool", IPXP here in Illinois, that was set up to help get those of us with pre-existing conditions in the individual market into plans that could help us until the health insurance exchanges start in 2014. I stood side-by-side with Governor Quinn as he announced the program to the public, and I defend it to this day as an important stop-gap measure.

Thanks to the subsidies made available through Obamacare, IPXP only costs me about $150 a month instead of the $700 I was quoted before. It'll be more now that I've celebrated my 35th birthday, going up to $200 a month, but that's still far better than not having insurance at all.

I got a job after three years of looking, one year after I got into the IPXP plan, but it was a contractor position that didn't offer benefits. I kept the IPXP plan through that year of employment, and I didn't have to worry about trying to wait until a job came along that offered health benefits. Now that I'm once again in the job market, I seamlessly have nothing to worry about from IPXP as it stays with me. This is what everyone can look forward to with the exchanges starting in January 2014.

One of the last fears I had left was washed away when the Supreme Court declared the ACA constitutional and upheld the law. (See my reaction to the ruling here) It's not the last hurdle, but it is one of the most important ones. There is no doubt now that Obamacare is the rightful law of the land and can help 32 million previously uninsured Americans just like me to ensure that health care is a right, not a privilege.

There are still challenges, and I hope you'll stand with me to ensure that I, and so many more just like me, never face that fear again. We will talk about many of those challenges in the days ahead, no doubt. Thank you for being interested in my story and for doing your part to ensure health care for all.

David Zoltan,
Guest Blogger for Illinois Health Matters

Since When is 2% Considered Massive?

I don't know about you but I've been enjoying watching all of the reactions to yesterday's decision. In addition to the chuckle I got when a few major news outlets got it wrong, I've been smirking about opponents' claims that the law places a "massive tax" on all Americans.

Let's just put things in perspective here: Only a tiny fraction of people will be impacted by the individual responsibility provisions - those who can afford coverage but choose not to buy it.

What is that "tiny fraction" you ask? Researchers at the Urban Institute told us earlier this year that only TWO out of one hundred would be impacted (more here on this from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). And again: These are people who can afford coverage but choose not to buy it.

What IS massive? The millions of Americans who now have peace of mind that they will have access to secure health coverage even when they get sick, change jobs, ore face challenging health conditions. They can rest assured that getting the health treatment they need won't bankrupt their families.

Elisabeth Burak
Senior Program Director
Georgetown University Center for Children & Families

(originally posted here on the Say Ahhh! Children's Health Policy Blog)

The Affordable Care Act Upheld: Addressing America's Health Care Crisis

Today’s Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius means that the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. As Chief Justice Roberts said in the majority opinion, Congress has the power to enact the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion, the two provisions challenged in the case.

People with insurance and people without insurance should be relieved that the process of reform can now move forward and make health care more secure. All of them have spent sleepless hours worried about the cost, lack of control, lack of choice, and absence of peace of mind associated with our current system. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has tools to address all of these issues, although much still depends on decisions made at the state and local level, where officials must now continue implementing this important work.

The Court’s decision means that the benefits of the Affordable Care Act that are already in place will not have to be reversed.

• Health insurers will have to make their policies easier for customers to comprehend.
• Insurance companies will have to spend a higher portion of your premiums actually providing health care.
• Young adults up to age 26 can now remain on their parents’ insurance policies.
• Over 60,000 “uninsurable” people have health insurance through the ACA’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Program.
• No child can be denied coverage by an insurance company due to a pre-existing health condition. Adults will win that protection in 2014.
• Every Medicare beneficiary who hits the prescription drug “donut hole” receives a 50% discount on their brand name and generic prescription drugs. As of March, Illinois Medicare beneficiaries who had triggered into this benefit were getting about $636 a month in savings.
• States receive significant federal grants to help them hold insurance companies accountable for unreasonable rate increases.
• Preventive services are free under all types of public or private health insurance. Thus, last year 18.9 million Medicare recipients received free annual checkups and preventative services.
• Women no longer need a referral from a primary care physician before seeing a gynecologist.
• Medicare premiums are lower than they would have been without the law.

Looking down the road a bit, the Court’s decision means that the full benefits of the law will be implemented on schedule:

• In 2014, 30 million Americans will gain coverage and no longer be uninsured.
• In consumer-friendly marketplaces, insurers will have to disclose all of their information in uniform and comprehensible language, so consumers can compare and make choices.
• No one will be denied coverage or charged a discriminatory rate due to a preexisting condition.
• Starting in 2014, all health plans will have to include maternity care.
• Seniors will have even more help paying for their prescriptions, eventually closing the Medicare doughnut hole.

Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid to cover all 16 million Americans with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level who are not currently eligible for Medicaid. The Act provides 100% federal funding to cover the costs of this expansion for the first years, and then settles in at 90% funding after five years. The Supreme Court’s decision today upholds Congress’s power to enact this expansion, and we encourage all the states to take full advantage of this wonderful opportunity.

The decision, however, also says that the federal government may not take away all of a state's existing Medicaid funding if it decides not to participate in the expansion. Medicaid law has always provided that, if states disobey the conditions Congress has imposed on the receipt of Medicaid funding, the federal government has several different remedies, one of which is to withdraw all federal funds. That remedy has never actually been used by the federal government, even though there have been many disputes involving state noncompliance with Medicaid conditions. So the threat that the federal government might deploy that remedy if a state failed to carry out the ACA's Medicaid expansion was highly theoretical. In today's decision, however, the Court ruled that a state's refusal to adopt the ACA's Medicaid expansion cannot trigger the removal from a state of all of its existing Medicaid funding. The ruling is unclear about exactly what the states' options are and what other remedies the federal government may have in those circumstances. As we study the decision further, we will address these Medicaid issues more in depth in future blogs. Of course, we urge all states to take advantage of the federally funded Medicaid expansion to bring coverage to their lowest income uninsured.

Tonight, people all over the country, men and women, of all ages, socioeconomic statuses, and political beliefs, can breathe a bit easier knowing that the reforms launched in March 2010 will continue and that America is moving toward quality, affordable, comprehensive health care for all.

John Bouman, President
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

(This post was co-authored by Caitlin Padula and originally appeared in the Shriver Brief on June 28, 2012)

Health Reform Upheld: A Summary of the Supreme Court's Decision

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision on the health reform bill, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, this morning. This historic decision has upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a whole (striking down only one penalty provision as unconstitutional), upholding measures improving access to and the quality of healthcare in the United States by expanding coverage, increasing benefits, and ensuring access to preventive services for many. This is a victory for communities and public health advocates throughout the country, and a relief for the many Americans already benefiting from some of the ACA’s programs.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate under Congress’s Taxing Power. [See here for a table of how all of the Justices' voted]. The individual mandate provision of the ACA states that individuals shall purchase health insurance, or pay a penalty. The Court considered the substance and application of the payment, and not its label. It was noted that the payment is collected by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. While undoubtedly intended to induce individuals to purchase health insurance, that a tax may have the purpose of influencing behavior rather than generating revenue is not problematic. This payment was likened to the taxes imposed on cigarettes for the purposes of smoking deterrence. Furthermore, the fact remained that the payment for failing to obtain insurance did not amount to a punishment for unlawful activity since it was not limited to willful violations of the mandate (as unlawful actions frequently are). Consequently, the Court concluded that mandate “leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.” Page 44.

The Court was unpersuaded by the argument that the individual mandate fell within Congress's Commerce Power. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commercial activity, however, the Court found the mandate not a regulation of existing commercial activity, but instead compulsion to engage in commercial activity, an action beyond the limited power given to the government under the Constitution.

While the individual mandate was upheld, the Supreme Court, however, did strike down the penalty of the Medicaid expansion provisions of the ACA as unconstitutional. Under the Medicaid program, the federal government provides funds to participating states, and in return the states agree to follow certain standards. The ACA expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and required states to expand coverage of their state’s Medicaid programs in accordance with the ACA, or lose all federal Medicaid funding (typically 50 to 83 percent of the state’s Medicaid program spending).

Although the Spending Power grants Congress the authority to create cooperative state-federal spending programs such as Medicaid, states must voluntarily accept the terms of such spending programs. The Court held that, because the ACA penalizes states who choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion by withholding existing federal funding under the Medicaid program, the provision was coercive. In choosing not to participate in the Medicaid expansion, states would lose over 10 percent of their overall budget (page 51), an effect the Court found to leave states with no real option but to accept the terms of the program, making participation non-voluntary and the program unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the expansion was found to be not a modification of an existing program, but instead the creation of a new one. Medicaid as initially enacted covered four distinct categories of people: “the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and needy families with dependent children.” However, the expansion changes the program into one that covers the entire nonelderly population with incomes less than 133 percent of the poverty level (or 138% FPL if you count the 5% modified adjusted gross income or MAGI). The Court found this not to be a mere modification of an existing program to provide healthcare to needy populations, but instead a transformation of the program into “an element of a national plan to provide universal health coverage.” Pages 53-54. The Court concluded by explaining that its opinion did not prevent the federal government from offering funds to expand Medicaid eligibility, only that states choosing not to participate in the new expansion could not be penalized through the loss of their existing federal Medicaid funding.

Today the United States has taken a great step towards reshaping the American healthcare system. The ACA and its reforms to the system will have a lasting affect on the way people receive and pay for personal medical care, improving access and quality while containing costs, and improving the health of our nation as a whole.

Amanda Swanson
Guest Blogger for Illinois Health Matters

*To read a summary of the Supreme Court hearings on the ACA, please see the post Supreme Court Wrap Up – A Law Student’s Perspective.

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