Home Services Offered Clients Healthcare Law ADR Special Edition Articles Seminars Contact Us

Special Edition Articles

 
Sunday, June 6th, 2010

Note: Donna Craig and Associates does not endorse political positions. Updates posted at this site should be regarded solely for informational purposes.

Oral Arguments In Virginia’s Suit Challenging The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Are Set For July 1, 2010. Virginia’s landmark suit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contends that the federal government exceeded its authority under the Constitution by mandating that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a fine. This mandate goes into effect in 2014. This alleged illegal mandate creates a conflict between state and federal law, and Virginia is compelled to defend its state law according to Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

The Government on the other hand defends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on two grounds. First, the federal government contends that Virginia has no standing to sue on behalf of individuals in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Second, the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Oral arguments by both sides will be held before Judge Henry Hudson on July 1, 2010.

 
 
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Note: Donna Craig & Associates does not endorse political positions. Updates posted at this site should be regarded solely for informational purposes.

House Passes H.R. 3590: The U.S. House of Representatives voted 219 to 212 on Sunday March 21, 2010, to pass Senate Bill H.R. 3590, which was passed by the U.S. Senate on December 24, 2010. A summary of the Senate’s bill was posted in the January 2010’s Special Edition posting on this website.

As the legislation now stands, it would be phased in over a ten year period. The highlights of Senate Bill 3590 are as follows:

2010 – Adults with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months can enroll in temporary high risk health insurance pools. The pools would end when insurance exchanges are implemented in 2014.

- All health insurance plans are to offer dependent coverage for children through the age of 26.

- Insurance companies can no longer put lifetime dollar limits on coverage or cancel policies, except in cases of fraud.

- Tax credits will be provided to help small businesses with 25 employers or less to get and keep health care coverage for their employees.

- The Medicare “doughnut hole”, in which Medicare beneficiaries have to pay the full cost of their prescription drugs, begins to close by providing a $250 rebate in 2010.

2011 – Medicare beneficiaries will be allowed a 50% discount on brand name drugs, further narrowing the doughnut hole.

- A 10% Medicare bonus will be provided to primary care physicians and general surgeons practicing in underserved areas.

- Medicare Advantage plans would begin to have their payments frozen, then lowered in 2012.

- A voluntary long term care insurance program would be made available to cover nursing home costs and assisting disabled individuals to stay in their homes. Benefits would start five years after people begin paying a fee for coverage.

- Community health centers funding would increase so more low income and uninsured people could be covered.

- Employers would be required to report the value of healthcare benefits on employees’ W2 tax statements.

2012 – Nonprofit insurance co-ops would be created to compete with commercial insurers.

- Hospital with high rates of preventable readmissions would face reduced Medicare payments.

2013 – Individuals making more than $200,000 and couples more than $250,000 would have a Medicare payroll tax of 2.35% (up from the current 1.45%)

- Tax sheltered flexible spending accounts would be limited to $2,500 a year, with yearly inflation indexing in the following years.

- Medical devices maker would have a 2.3 % sales tax on medical devices. Devices such as eyeglasses, contact lenses and hearing aids would be exempt.

2014 – State health insurance exchanges would be created.

- Medicaid would be expanded to cover low income individuals up to 133% of the federal poverty level.

- Insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, or charging higher rates to those with poor or chronic health conditions. Premiums could only vary by age, place of residence, family size, and tobacco use.

- Insurer would be required to cover maternity care as they do other medical procedures.

- All legal residents would be required to have health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship, or pay a fine to the IRS. The individual penalty starts at $95 in 2014 and rises to $695 in 2016. Family penalties would be capped at $2,250.

- Employers with more than 50 workers would be penalized if any of their workers get health care coverage through the insurance exchange and receive a tax credit. The penalty would be $2,000 times the total number of workers employed at the company. The employer could deduct the first 30 employees however.

2018 – A tax would be imposed on employer sponsored heath insurance worth more than $10,200 for individual coverage, and $27,500 for a family plan. The tax would be 40% of the value of the plan above the thresholds, indexed for inflation.

2020 – The doughnut hole coverage gap in Medicare prescription benefits would be phased out. Seniors would continue to pay the standard 25% of their drug costs until they reach the threshold for Medicare catastrophic coverage.

H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010:   Following the passage of H.R. 3590, the House passed by a vote of 220 to 211 a reconciliation package (“Reconciliation Act of 2010”) which reflects various compromises between the U.S. House and Senate. These “fixes” in the reconciliation package were taken up by the Senate on March 23, 2010. Meanwhile the Republican parties have introduced more than a hundred amendments to the Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Congressional Budget Office:  Over the past few days, the CBO has issued various estimates regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) and the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872). These can be reviewed at:

H.R. 3590 – http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index+11307

H.R. 4872 – http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11355, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11376, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11378, and http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11379

States’ Reaction:   Attorneys general from 13 states, including Michigan, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, Washington and Colorado, moved in opposition to the legislation, filing suits to stop the historic healthcare overhaul. Their lawsuits are based on constitutional grounds, in which mandates are imposed on states to fund such legislation, and on behalf of individuals who are mandated to purchase health insurance coverage. Additional states are expected to join in on such litigation.

 
 
Sunday, February 21st, 2010

Note: Donna Craig and Associates does not endorse political positions. Updates posted at this site should be regarded solely for informational purposes.

Healthcare Summit:  In advance of the bipartisan healthcare summit, scheduled for February 25, 2010, President Obama met with leaders from both parties on February 9, 2010 to discuss how to move forward with healthcare reform. In a press conference after the February 9th meeting, President Obama revealed that he was looking forward to constructive debate that would address:

  • Bringing down the costs for all Americans as well as the federal government?
  • Providing adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry?
  • Making coverage affordable and available to those who currently don’t have insurance coverage?
  • Providing for a path of fiscal sustainability?

In a recent interview of HHS Secretary Sebelius, she asserted that “President Obama plans to use the already passed House and Senate bills as a starting point for next week’s healthcare summit with Republican leaders”. And as Secretary Sebelius was touting the House and Senate bills, a recently released Zogby poll showed that 57% of Americans do not support either of the competing Senate or House bills.

On February 22, 2010, President Obama will meet with Governors from around the country to discuss major points of healthcare reform. Also today, the White House will post a plan that brings together the major points of the bills passed by the House and Senate Democrats last year. This plan may be viewed by going to http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health-care

States’ Activities:   Meanwhile while Washington prepares for the healthcare summit, individual states are taking matters into their own hands. In the Utah legislature, HB 67 would require the Utah legislature and governor to sign off on any federal healthcare programs before they would be implemented in Utah.

In Georgia, legislation has been introduced into the Senate which would allow small businesses to band together to insure their workers as one group. The legislation would: remove annual and lifetime benefit caps; allow children up to the age of 25 to stay on their parent’s policies, even if not in school; and would prevent insurers from canceling policies based on misstatements or innocent omissions.

Finally, in Ohio a health insurance co-operative, Benefits Unlimited, Inc., is drawing interest from individuals and employers due to their low co-op annual dues. Benefits Unlimited seeks to provide medical, dental and optical coverage, and hopes to sign up 35,000 people nationally within a year, in order to generate money needed to become a health-insurance company in Ohio.

 
 
Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Note: Donna Craig and Associates does not endorse political positions. Updates posted at this site should be regarded solely for informational purposes.

On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 by a 60-39 vote. The entire bill may be reviewed by going to: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=&packageID=BILLS-111hr3590PP.   The original bill was amended on December 19, 2009 when Senator Harry Reid filed his Manager’s Amendment. Senator Reid claims the legislation would cover an additional 31 million uninsured, bringing full coverage to 94% of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”), in a letter to Senator Reid, estimates the legislation would decrease the deficit by $132 billion over the next ten years (2010-2019), and by $1 trillion or more in the following decade (2020-2029). The CBO’s analysis can be viewed at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10868&zzz=39974. The next step is to meld this bill with the House’s version. The following is a summary of some of the highlights of the Senate’s final bill.

Alternatives to the Public Option: Under the final Senate bill, the public option was removed. The Manager’s Amendment offered an alternative, in which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management would be responsible for contracting with private insurers to offer at least two multi-state qualified health plans (“MSQHP”) as part of the state Insurance Exchanges (discussed in October and December 2009 Special Edition postings). One of those multi-state qualified health plans must be a non-profit. MSQHPs must include at least one of four categories of benefits (bronze, silver, gold, or platinum) or provide catastrophic health care coverage. States may provide a basic health plan for individuals with incomes 133 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (who don’t qualify for Medicaid), instead of providing subsidies for purchasing health coverage through an Insurance Exchange. To help states finance the basic health plan, the federal government may provide states with 95% of the intended original subsidy amounts.

Health Insurance Mandate: Beginning in 2014, all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to maintain minimum health insurance coverage. For those who do not maintain health insurance coverage, they would be penalized the greater of either a flat fee or a percentage of taxable income. The flat fee would be $95 in 2014, $495 in 2015, and $750 in 2016, while the percentage of taxable income would be calculated as follows: 0.5 percent of taxable income in 2014, 1 percent in 2015, and 2 percent in 2016.

Insurance Markets: Beginning in 2014, there would no longer be lifetime or annual limits on health insurance coverage. Prior to 2014, health plans would be permitted to impose annual limits with respect to essential health benefits packages. “Essential health benefits” is defined as: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance abuse services; prescription drugs, rehabilitative, habilitative services and devices; laboratory services, preventive, wellness services, and chronic disease management; and pediatric services. Individuals enrolled in a group health plan or with an individual coverage plan on the date the bill is enacted into law, may maintain that coverage through grandfathered plans. Rating bands, lifetime, annual limits, and pre-existing condition exclusions would not apply to grandfathered plans.

Physician-Owned Hospitals: The deadline for physician-owned hospitals to have Medicare provider agreements in place remains at February 1, 2010. The bill also describes a process by which the Secretary of HHS may approve the expansion of beds, procedure, and operating rooms in these grandfathered facilities. The Secretary is to establish the process by August 1, 2010.

Medicare: The disproportionate share (DSH) payments will be reduced by 75 percent in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. A portion of that 75 percent would be returned to hospitals at a future date based on the amount of uncompensated care delivered. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (previously known as the Independent Medicare Advisory Board) will be responsible for reviewing and making non-binding recommendations on cost, quality, access, and utilization issues involving providers, private health care payers, and Medicare. Hospitals will not be under review until 2020. All recommendations made by the Board must be sent simultaneously to Congress and the President.

Medicaid: The Medicaid DSH reductions to hospitals would be based on a formula which would: (a) compare the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data showing the percentage of uninsured to; (b) the state’s uninsured levels; and (c) would take into account the amount of DSH allotment spent by the hospital in the preceding year. Beginning in FY 2013, the Medicaid DSH reductions would range from 17.5 – 50 percent, based on this formula.

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs): Beginning in October 2014, a prospective payment system would be established for services in Medicare FQHCs. No later than January 2011, the Secretary of HHS would require FQHCs to submit information (including HCPCS codes) in order for the Secretary to develop and implement the prospective payment system.

Tort Reform: Beginning in FY 2011, states will be eligible for $50 million in federal grants over five years for demonstration projects that are developed, and implemented to evaluate alternatives to tort litigation for resolving health care disputes. Federal grants will be given to state projects that involve all relevant stakeholders, focus on patient safety, and help to reduce medical errors and adverse events, increase the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes, and encourage the efficient resolution of disputes.

Excise Taxes on Insurance Plans: The excise taxes remain the same as originally drafted in the bill. See the discussion in the December 2009 Special Edition posting. However, the discussion below addresses proposed increases in insurance premium thresholds.

Combining House and Senate Bills

The current challenge is to combine the Senate and House health reform bills, which have different approaches for providing and paying for health care coverage. Specific provisions that differ in the House and Senate bills include employer exemptions, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”), revenues for the bills, costs of the bills, and insurance subsidies.

The Senate bill exempts employers with less than 50 employees from providing health insurance, except for construction companies who are only exempt if they have less than 5 employees. The Senate bill extends funding for CHIP for two years beyond the current end date. The House bill ends the CHIP program, but it expands the Medicaid program to families earning 133 percent of the federal poverty level, and offers the option of Insurance Exchanges to cover children starting in 2014. The Senate bill allows for Insurance Exchanges to be developed by each state, while the House bill provides for a national Insurance Exchange.

Opposition by States

About 20 states are currently on record as opposing portions of the Senate bill based on constitutional grounds. Thirteen state attorneys general have questioned the constitutionality of the federal funding provision for Nebraska’s Medicaid program. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted in favor of the Senate bill in exchange for federal funding to pay for the mandatory expansion of Nebraska’s Medicaid program. As a result, other states would shoulder the majority of the costs of expanding Nebraska’s Medicaid program. Several states are debating state constitutional amendments to contest federal reform. Supporters of the state amendments claim that the individual insurance mandates do not constitute interstate commerce, and the penalty for not buying insurance is not included in Congress’ taxing power.

High-Cost Plan Taxes

Labor union leaders, the White House, and Democrat Congressional leaders agreed on January 14, 2010 to a 40 percent tax on employer-sponsored health plans with premiums totaling $24,000 per family of four and individual plans costing $8,900 per year beginning in 2013. The tax would be assessed on the amount exceeding the established threshold. Union health plans that are part of collective bargaining agreements as well as state and local government employees’ insurance plans would not be taxed until 2018. Companies with a disproportionate number of women or older workers in their workforce, workers living in states with high health care costs, and workers in high-risk occupations will have higher thresholds.

__________________________________________________________________

Breaking News

With the election of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race this week, we may likely see further revisions to the House and Senate bills, or possibly even a “start over”. The signals out of Washington are that at the very least, there needs to be a slowdown in trying to pass healthcare legislation. President Obama, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, indicated that no healthcare legislation should be forced through, but that “Senator elect Scott Brown needs to be part of the process”. As always, Donna Craig and Associates will continue to follow and post on healthcare reform as it moves forward.

 
 
Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Note: Donna Craig and Associates does not endorse political positions. Updates posted on this site should be regarded solely for informational purposes.

Congress has been extremely busy over the last few weeks introducing and debating various health care reform bills. The following provides a summary of those activities.

Affordable Health Care of America Act (H.R. 3962)

On November 7, 2009,  The House of Representatives passed, by a 220 – 215 vote, the Affordable Health Care of America Act (H.R. 3962). A summary of the bill was discussed in the November 2009 Special Edition posting.  A summary of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) November 6, 2009  scoring of HR 3962  may be reviewed at:   http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell_mgr_amendment_update.pdf In an updated analysis, the CBO predicts the Affordable Health Care of America Act would increase national health expenditures by $289 billion over the next decade. The revised cost estimate may be reviewed at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index+10741

_______________________________________________________________________

Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961)

On November 19, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961) by a vote of 243 to 183. This legislation would modify Medicare physician payments to be equal to the gross domestic product (GDP) plus 1 percentage point per year. This is compared to the current rate structure which is equal to the GDP, without any adjustment. Payments for primary and preventative care services would grow at the GDP plus 2% per year. If passed, H.R. 3961 would appeal a 21% fee reduction in physician payment schedules, which is scheduled to go into effect in January 2010. This fee reduction is required by a 1997 formula originally enacted to control costs. The Obama administration and numerous physician organizations have endorsed H.R. 3961. The CBO estimates the cost of the legislation at $210 billion over the next ten years. The CBO’s November 4, 2009 scoring may be reviewed at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10704/hr3961.pdf

_______________________________________________________________________

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Substitute to H.R. 3590)

A 2,074 page bill was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on November 18, 2009 (amendment in nature of a substitute to H.R. 3590). The proposed legislation may be reviewed in its entirety by going to: http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf The Congressional Budget Office estimates of H.R. 3590 may be reviewed by going to  http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10731 In an effort to secure passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate, on December 8, 2009, reported some compromises to the public option and Medicare coverage provisions. These compromises are discussed below.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, as originally introduced, would provide for the following:

Immediate Reforms: In 2010, the proposed legislation would: (a) eliminate lifetime and unreasonable annual limits on benefits; (b) prohibit rescission of health insurance policies; (c) provide assistance for uninsured individuals with pre-existing conditions; (d) require coverage for preventative services and immunizations; (e) extend dependent coverage to the age of 26; (f) cap insurance company non-medical, administrative expenditures.

Public Option: The legislation would create a new governmental insurance program to compete with private insurers, however States would be allowed to opt out. The Secretary of HHS would be required to establish the national public option, the Community Health Insurance Option. The legislation would prohibit federal dollars from being used to pay for abortion services.

On December 8, 2009, the Senate agreed to pursue a compromise, to replace the public option with national health benefits plans. Under the compromise, the Office of Personnel Management would negotiate with private insurance companies to offer a national health plan, similar to those offered to federal employees. If these private plans failed to provide affordable coverage to all Americans, the government would then offer a new insurance coverage plan, similar to the public option.

Health Insurance Mandate: Beginning in 2014, individuals would be required to maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty fee of $95 in 2014, $350 in 2015, $750 in 2016 and indexed thereafter. For those individuals under the age of 18, the penalty would be half of the amount assigned to adult individuals. Exceptions to the mandated coverage would be for religious objectors; those who cannot afford coverage and those with incomes less than 100 percent the federal poverty level; Indian tribe members; those who receive a hardship waiver; incarcerated individuals; and those without coverage for less than three months. Individuals and employers who currently have coverage may maintain such coverage under a “grandfather” provision. Employers with more than 50 full-time employees will be penalized if they do not offer coverage or such coverage is deemed unaffordable. Employers with more than 200 employees must automatically provide new full-time employees with health insurance coverage.

Insurance Exchanges: By 2014, each state would establish an Exchange to allow individuals and small employers to obtain health insurance coverage. Refundable tax credits would be available for those with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL). Credits would be available for eligible citizens and legally-residing aliens. Undocumented immigrants would be ineligible for premium tax credits. A credit would also assist small businesses that have fewer than 25 workers, with up to 50 percent credit of the employer’s total premium cost.

Expand Medicaid Eligibility: Beginning in 2014, all children, parents, and childless adults who are not entitled to Medicare and who have family incomes up to 133 percent FPL will become eligible for Medicaid.

Medicare Costs: Beginning in 2012, hospital payments will be adjusted based on the dollar value of each hospital’s percentage of potentially preventable Medicare readmissions. Also, in fiscal year 2013 Medicare hospital payments will be linked to quality performance on common high-cost conditions such as cardiac, surgical, and pneumonia care. Long-term hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and hospice providers will participate in value-based purchasing with quality measure reporting starting in fiscal year 2014. There will be incentives for physicians to report Medicare quality data. Penalties will be imposed for non-participating providers. HHS will develop a voluntary pilot program — encouraging hospitals, doctors, and post-acute providers to improve patient care and achieve savings through bundled payments.

Rural hospitals will see an increase in Medicare provider fees to ensure that beneficiaries have access to care. The legislation would extend the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program for two years and expand eligible sites to additional states and hospitals.

Home health care payments will be adjusted based on the current mix of services and intensity of care provided to patients. HHS will also update Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments to better account for hospital uncompensated care costs. Medicare Advantage payments will be based on the average of the bids submitted by insurance plans in each market.

The legislation would establish a 15-member Medicare Advisory Board to present Congress with proposals to reduce costs and improve quality care for beneficiaries. The Board would not make proposals that ration care, raise taxes, adjust beneficiary premiums, or change Medicare benefit, eligibility, or cost-sharing standards.

On December 8, 2009, the Senate, in an emerging agreement, called for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55. The CBO, as of this posting, has not released its cost analysis of the potential expansion of the Medicare program.

Public Health and Chronic Disease Initiatives: The proposed legislation would authorize new programs related to preventative care and services, such as school-based health clinics. Co-payments and deductibles would also be waived for annual wellness visits and most preventative services. The Centers for Disease Control will provide grants to states and large local health departments to conduct pilot programs in the 55 to 64 year old population, to evaluate chronic disease risk factors, conduct evidence based public health interventions, and ensure that individuals identified with chronic diseases or at risk for chronic diseases receive clinical treatment to reduce health risks.

Health Care Workforce: H.R. 3590 would establish a national commission to review current and projected health care workforce needs, and to provide comprehensive information to Congress and the Administration to align workforce resources with national needs. The federal student loan program will be modified to ease criteria for schools and students, shorten payback periods, and make the primary care student loan program more attractive. The funding of the Nursing Student Loan Program would be increased. Loan forgiveness would be offered to public health students and workers in exchange for working at least three years at a federal, state, local, or tribal public health agency, as well as to allied health professionals employed at public health agencies or in settings located in Health Professional Shortage Areas, Medically Underserved Areas, or with Medially Underserved Populations. Beginning in 2011, HHS may redistribute unfilled resident physician positions by redirecting those slots for the training of primary care physicians. The proposed legislation would also provide expanded funding for federally qualified health centers and award grants to states and medical schools to support the expansion of emergency medical services to children needing trauma and critical care treatment.

Fraud and Abuse Integrity Programs: The proposed legislation would seek to combat fraud and abuse in public and private programs. Physician-owned hospitals that do not have a Medicare provider agreement in place prior to February 2010 will not be able to participate in Medicare. H.R. 3590 would require physicians to inform patients who are referred for imaging services (in writing), that such imaging services may be provided by providers other than to those whom they were referred. Skilled nursing facilities would be required to implement compliance and ethic programs. The Secretary of HHS may reduce civil monetary penalties for facilities that self-report and correct deficiencies. There is expected to be new penalties for providers who knowingly do not return overpayments. Each violation would be subject to a fine of up to $50,000. The HHS Secretary would have the authority to disenroll a Medicare physician or supplier who fails to maintain and provide access to: written orders or requests for payments for durable medical equipment, certifications for home health services, or referrals for other items and services.

States would be required to terminate individuals and entities from their Medicaid programs if those individuals and entities are terminated from Medicare or another state’s Medicaid program. Medicaid programs would be required to exclude an individual or entity if the entity or individual owns, controls, or manages an entity that: (a) failed to repay overpayments; (b) is suspended, excluded, or terminated from participation in any Medicaid program; or (c) is affiliated with an individual or entity that has been suspended, excluded, or terminated from Medicaid.

Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS): The proposed legislation would establish a voluntary, self-funded long-term insurance program for the purchase of community living assistance services for individuals with functional limitations. The benefit plan would allow for a five year vesting period, as well as provide a cash benefit of not less than an average of $50 per day. The CBO’s analysis of the budgetary effects of the CLASS Program may be reviewed at: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10768 and http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10769

Excise Taxes on Insurance Plans: H.R. 3590 would impose a 40 percent excise tax on insurance companies that provide plans with an annual premium above the threshold of $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The tax would apply to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, but not to plans sold in the individual market. As for non-profit BCBS organizations, in order to take advantage of the special tax benefits they receive, they must have a medical loss ratio of 85 percent or higher. The CBO’s analysis of the health care premiums may be reviewed at: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.dfm?index=10781


 
 
Monday, November 2nd, 2009

Note: Donna Craig and Associates does not endorse political positions. Updates posted at this site should be regarded solely for informational purposes.

America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009

This Act, introduced by Finance Chairman Max Baucus and discussed in the October 2009 Special Edition Posting, passed by a 14 – 9 margin on October 13, 2009. The health care reform package, among other items, will expand Medicaid coverage, offer federal subsidies to help low-income Americans gain coverage, require individuals to buy coverage, and create new insurance exchanges. While Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME) voted for America’s Healthy Future Act, there is no guarantee she will be supportive when the bill is merged with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (”HELP”) bill, which passed in July 2009.

Despites its passage, America’s Healthy Future Act came under fire by Republicans. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) criticized the bill as “doing little to bring down health care costs”. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) stated the bill “imposes new fees and taxes that will cause premium increases as early as 2010″. AARP also criticized the Baucus bill as not going far enough to address age-rating by insurers. AARP issued a statement predicting that “older Americans’ premiums would be four times more than the premiums for younger Americans, making it difficult for older Americans to afford health coverage”.

__________________________________________________________________

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid Proposes Public Option – States May Opt-Out

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced on October 26, 2009 that he plans to bring a bill to the Senate floor that would include a public option, but would allow states to opt-out if they choose to do so. His bill, like the health care reform bill that cleared the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in July, includes a public option. Senator Snow (R-ME) was critical of Senator Reid’s decision, indicating she would rather favor a safety net plan, whereby coverage would be provided in states where insurance companies failed to offer plans that were affordable to low-income persons. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) was also critical of Reid’s announcement, calling it a “roadblock to reform”, and stating that “A new government-run plan would underpay doctors and hospitals rather than driving real reforms that bring down costs and improve quality”.

 __________________________________________________________________

Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009

House Democrats unveiled the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” on October 29, 2009. H.R. 3962 is a 1,990-page bill that blends and updates previous House committee bills. The bill can be read in its entirety by going to: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf. The $894 billion healthcare reform package is estimated to cover 96% of Americans. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) touted the bill as providing “affordability for our middle-class that lowers costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out-of-pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), Ways and Means Committee Chairman stated “This bill ensures that every American has access to high-quality, affordable care that meets their needs, while also working to slow the staggering growth of health care costs”.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act includes the following provisions:

Public Option: The bill retains the public option by establishing a government run option available within the national Health Insurance Exchange. HHS will administer the public option and negotiate rates for providers that participate in the public option. The legislation allows start-up loans to assist states with the creation of health insurance co-operatives as an additional option.

Insurance Reform: The bill prohibits insurance rating based on health status or pre-exiting conditions. The bill would also remove the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for health insurers and medical malpractice insurers, which mirrors the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009, which was passed by the House Judiciary Committee on October 21, 2009. Under this bill, employers would be required to provide health insurance to their employees or contribute 8% of their payroll to help cover expenses of employees who seek coverage through the Exchange. Employers that choose to offer coverage must contribute at least 72.5% of the premium for workers, and 65% for families. Small businesses with annual payrolls below $500,000 would be exempt from requirements to offer employee health care coverage or contributing to coverage, including the 8% payroll contribution. Individuals will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fee equal to the lower of 2.5% of their adjusted income above the filing threshold or the average premium on the Exchange.

Affordability Credits: Affordability credits would be available to individuals and families with incomes up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. These credits would be available to American citizens and legal residents whose employers do not offer coverage or whose share of employer-sponsored health insurance costs more than 12% of their family income.

Medicare: Beginning in 2011, the bill would reduce Medicare Advantage payments over three years to achieve parity with 100% of Medicare fee-for-service rates. In addition, the bill would provide target bonuses to high-quality plans in high enrollment areas where reductions are likely to be most disruptive.

Medicaid: Medicaid coverage would be expanded to everyone with income at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, who are eligible for Medicare. State Medicaid programs would be required to cover recommended preventative services without cost-sharing requirements. Beginning in 2012, the bill requires that physicians and other practitioners be paid for primary care services they provide to Medicaid patients at 100% of Medicare rates. The bill also reduces Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments to states by $10 billion ($1.5 billion in FY 2017, $2.5 billion in FY 2018, and 6.0 billion in FY 2019). To pay for the expansions in coverage, the bill would impose a surcharge on taxpayers who have adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million (married filing a joint return) and $500,000 (single) at a rate of 5.4%. The bill also imposes an excise tax of 2.5% on medical devices and limits flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans as well as increases penalties for non-qualified distributions from health savings accounts.

__________________________________________________________________

The Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009

 This reform bill is meant to reform the Medicare physician payment system and repeal the 21% fee reduction schedule to go into effect in January 2010. This legislation allows the volume of most services to grow at the rate of the gross domestic product (”GDP”) plus 1 percentage point per year, and also the volume of primary and preventative care services to grow at the GDP plus 2 percentage points per year. This bill (H.R. 3961) can be read in its entirety at:  http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_sgr1.pdf

 


 
 
Friday, October 9th, 2009

This Special Edition posting is brought to readers as a means of disseminating some information regarding the healthcare reform debate. Donna Craig & Associates does not endorse this plan, or for that matter, any proposed legislation. And while it is impossible to summarize all of the proposed bills, committee drafts, and amendments of all proposed legislation put forth previously, it appears that the draft legislation introduced on September 16, 2009 by Senator Max Baucus, may have some traction to move forward. Sen. Baucus’ bill will certainly not proceed as is, since over 500 amendments of the bill were filed within the first two weeks after introduction. The full text of Sen. Max Baucus’ “America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009″ can be read at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446/Baucus-Health-Care-Bill—Full-Text

Congressional Budget Office (”CBO”) – To review the CBO’s proposed cost estimates on individual and families’ health insurance premiums, go to http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10618/09-22-Analysis_of_Premiums.pdf To read CBO’s proposed cost and revenue projections of Sen. Baucus’ of the draft legislation, go to http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10572/09-16-Proposal_SFC_Chairman.pdf  On October 7, 2009, the CBO amended its earlier analysis of the Baucus bill; it can be found at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10642/10-7-Baucus_letter.pdf

American Hospital Association (”AHA”) - On September 18, 2009, the AHA weighed in on the cost estimates for its member hospitals. AHA estimates that Sen. Baucus’ bill, as presented on September 16, 2009, would reduce Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals by $22.9 billion and $24.9 billion respectively, but the reduction would occur only after corresponding decreases had been achieved in the uninsured population. It is estimated that these reductions would save the Medicare and Medicaid programs $47.8 billion over 10 years. This prediction, in combination with news that on September 30, 2009 the Michigan legislature cut Medicaid funding for the upcoming year by 8% in the State’s budget, is not good news for hospitals and healthcare providers, particularly since Michigan is yet to finish its budget process and deeper cuts are possible. Hospitals must be concerned that additional costs cuts may be on the horizon.

According to AHA’s analysis, the proposed legislation would not make any changes in existing payments to teaching hospitals. It does conclude there would be a redistribution of unused residency training slots as a way to encourage increased training of primary care physicians and general surgeons. Certain hospitals (those that previously participated in a voluntary reduction of slots), and rural teaching hospitals with fewer than 250 beds, would be exempt from redistribution of their residency training slots. For further discussion on how graduate medical education will be affected by this proposed legislation, go to page 105 of the full text of the bill. The website address is listed above.

Summary of America’s Healthy Future Act – Portions of Sen. Max Baucus’ bill, which are pertinent to clients of Donna Craig & Associates, include the following:

Stark Law – Physician-Owned Hospitals – The bill would modify the Stark law exception for physician-owned hospitals, and would prevent physicians from self-referring to hospitals in which they have an ownership interest if those hospitals were not operating under a Medicare provider contract by November 1, 2009. For physician-owned hospitals that currently operate under a Medicare contract, they would be grandfathered in and allowed to self-refer, subject to the following conditions:

  • Assurance that there are bona fide investments and proportional returns on those investments;
  • Disclosure of physician ownership interests to patients through public notices on the hospital’s website and reporting to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
  • Assurance that hospitals are capable of responding to complications, emergencies, and transferring patients to other facilities, when needed;
  • Disclosure to patients if the hospital does not have 24-hour/7-day onsite physician coverage; and
  • Require the approval of Health and Human Services (”HHS”) for any increase in the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, and beds, as well as some restrictions on overall growth.

HIPAA – Health Plans – The proposed legislation would accelerate the development, adoption, and implementation of a set of operating rules related to health plan verification, claims status, claims remittance/payments, and electronic funds transfers. Adoption of rules related to unique health plan identifiers, electronic use of claims attachments, enrollment/disenrollment, health plan premium payments, and referral certification and authorizations would also be accelerated.

Health Insurance Exchanges – By 2010 all states would be required to establish state-based health insurance exchanges for individual and small group markets. Beginning in 2013, all health plans participating in the individual and small group markets must comply with the insurance market reforms. State insurance commissioners would review and regulate plans offered through the exchange.

Insurers in the state based exchanges would be required to offer individual and small group markets, a minimum of silver and gold categories of coverage (out of a four benefit category program of bronze, silver, gold, and platinum). All plans must include the full range of services, including: inpatient and outpatient, physician, diagnostic, maternity and newborn, pediatric, radiation, diagnostic imaging, mental health services, and first dollar coverage for preventative services. Plans would not have a lifetime or annual limit of coverage. For individual health insurance plans, premiums would only vary based on age, family size, and tobacco use.

State governments would be required to apply new federal premium rating requirements to individual and small group markets. HHS would define qualified risk adjustment models to be used by the states as well as pre-qualify entities that states can use to conduct the risk adjustment. All health insurers would be required to contribute to a reinsurance program administered by a reinsurance non-profit entity in years 2013 – 2015.

Health Care Cooperatives – The legislation would establish the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP), which would facilitate the formation of non-profit, member-run, health insurance companies, using $6 billion in federal grants and start-up funds. Qualified CO-OPs would be non-profit, and could not be an existing insurer, or its affiliate or subsidiary, and could not be sponsored by any government entity.

Mandated Insurance – Beginning in 2013, all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to secure insurance, either through the individual market, public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Veteran’s Health Care Program, or through their employers. A premium tax credit would be available to low and middle income individuals and families purchasing insurance through the state exchanges. Undocumented immigrants would be prohibited from receiving a premium tax credit. If an individual failed to secure health insurance coverage, an excise tax would be levied on the individual. There would be exceptions to this excise tax for: (i) premiums exceeding 10 percent of their adjusted gross income; (ii) those below 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level; (iii) those with religious reasons; (iv) those experiencing a hardship, as determined by HHS; and (v) those who are documented Indians, as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Employer Responsibility – Employers would not be required to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. Small employers with up to 25 employees, with average annual wages per employee of no more than $40,000 would be eligible for a tax credit for contributions to purchase employee health insurance coverage. If an employee has an employer who does not provide health insurance coverage, the employee could seek an unaffordability waiver and tax credit from the state exchange. This tax credit waiver would be presented to the employer for determination of the employer’s tax liability. Beginning in 2013, an employer with more than 50 employees, and one that doesn’t offer health insurance to its employees, would be assessed a fee for each full-time employee who receives a tax credit waiver. The employer would then be obligated to pay the lesser of the flat dollar amount (as set by Health and Human Services) multiplied by number of employees receiving the tax credit waiver, or $400 multiplied by the total number of employees.

Medicaid – Beginning in 2014, the Medicaid program would be expanded to cover non-elderly individuals, including parents, children, and childless adults up to 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Also, states would receive federal assistance to defray the costs. The amount of federal assistance would depend on whether the state falls into the expansion state category (states that covered parents and childless adults at 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level or above prior to 2014) or the other state category (did not expand coverage prior to 2014). States would be required to maintain their Children’s Health Insurance Program (”CHIP”) programs until September 30, 2013. The bill also guarantees prescription drug benefits to all Medicaid beneficiaries.

Delivery System Reform – For specifics on proposed reimbursement methodologies to hospitals and healthcare providers, rural hospitals, hospice, home health agencies, durable medical equipment and other suppliers, the reader may contact Donna Craig & Associates for further discussion or go to Sen. Baucus’ full text of the bill, located at: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446/Baucus-Health-Care-Bill—Full-Text

While Sen. Baucus’ proposed legislation has already seen over 525 filed amendments, it is impossible to predict the course of this legislation. Republicans and Democrats must work to meld various proposed bills and committee revisions in the upcoming months. Donna Craig & Associates will work to update you as significant, and credible information comes out of Washington D.C. Again, Donna Craig & Associates does not endorse any proposed legislation, but works to piece together information regarding legislation.


 
 
Monday, April 6th, 2009

Donna Craig authored the following article, as seen in the April 6, 2009 issue of Michigan Lawyers Weekly.

The healthcare industry is not immune from the stresses and strains other businesses and professionals endure during these current economic times. As the unemployment rate increases, the number of uninsured and underinsured patients also rises, demanding more uncompensated care from hospitals and healthcare workers; forcing them to tighten their belts as they reallocate staffing and resources. To meet these challenges, hospitals and healthcare professionals, along with ancillary staff, must maintain or even improve the quality of care provided to patients, but with fewer resources. Providing patient care in this type of environment is ripe for disputes and conflicts in the workplace. If such disputes and conflicts are not resolved at an early stage and are left to fester, they may negatively impact the quality of care provided to patients.

Effective January 1, 2009, The Joint Commission, a healthcare accrediting agency, mandated that hospital governing bodies establish conflict management policies and procedures for resolving disputes among individuals working in their hospitals. It should be noted however, that implementing written policies and procedures without addressing the underlying stresses that give rise to workplace conflicts will not achieve their intended purpose. Additionally, hospitals would be well served to go beyond the mere drafting of policies and procedures to adopt and implement a sound conflict management program that is supported by management, medical staffs, and employees. A broadly defined and implemented conflict management program allows for: early recognition and identification of conflict among the healthcare workforce; a proactive and consistent response to conflicts and disputes; support of open communication and problem solving as a means of working towards potential resolutions; and transformation from ineffective and dysfunctional communication styles into respectful and empowered communication models. Transforming the way that disputing parties communicate is helpful in not only resolving current disputes, but also in building a basis for better communication going forward. Better communication between members of the healthcare team makes for a more effective and efficient workplace. The end result: healthcare team members can focus more on providing quality patient care and less on distracting conflicts and disputes.

Currently healthcare associations are touting ready-made model policies and procedures as a means of addressing The Joint Commission’s new conflict management accrediting standard. Hospitals seriously committed to developing a comprehensive conflict management program need not look further than the conflict management program implemented by the United States Postal Services. Such a conflict management program can be adapted to the hospital setting. The United States Postal Service’s conflict management program, REDRESS® (Resolve Employment Disputes, Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly), was born out of the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by postal employees in the Northern District of Florida. As part of that settlement, the parties agreed to develop a workplace mediation program that would address disputes in a more effective and timely process. What started as a pilot program in 1994 at three Florida sites was then expanded nationwide based on the commitment of management and employees.

To this day, the REDRESS® program continues to be successful in reducing conflict in the workplace and encouraging more effective communication between parties. The hallmark of the program is the use of the transformative mediation model, which allows parties to openly discuss the issues that are important to them in a manner that helps to “transform” their working relationships. The United States Postal Service’s commitment to such a program has resulted in a significant reduction in formal complaints filed by postal employees.

In transformative mediation, an environment is created that supports empowerment and recognition of the parties in dispute. Empowered people are more likely to view disputes from the other party’s perspective, which leads to improved interaction, greater mutual understanding, and mutual beneficial resolutions to their disputes. Particularly in the hospital setting, where some conflicts may involve parties in uneven bargaining positions (for instance, a medical staff member and a unit manager), transformative mediation can be most effective in bringing the parties to the table and creating an atmosphere in which they can find workable solutions to their conflicts and disputes.

Because the United States Postal Service, like the hospital setting, has: (i) a 24/7 work place environment; (ii) a hierarchy of management and staff; and (iii) an interdependence between team members and a need for effective communication, it is possible for its conflict management program, with some adaptation, to be effectively introduced into the hospital setting. Mediating healthcare disputes and conflicts that occur on various work shifts, 24/7, depending on the disputing parties’ work schedules, could be accomplished as easily as in the hospital setting as in the REDRESS® program. One difference in designing a conflict management program for the hospital setting would be the need to safeguard certain confidentiality protections and privileges (HIPAA, peer review, etc.). Differences in implementing conflict management programs in the private hospital setting versus a governmental agency would also need to be addressed.

Given the day-to-day challenges facing healthcare providers (hospitals and healthcare professionals) in a society that expects quality care, investing in a comprehensive conflict management program will provide an outlet for resolving disputes at an early stage, and allowing healthcare providers to get back to what they do best, providing quality patient care.

Donna J. Craig, RN, JD is the principal in the firm of Donna Craig & Associates, PLC, specializing in healthcare law, arbitration, and mediation services, and serving the needs of private and governmental parties. She is currently working with clients to incorporate REDRESS® principles into healthcare conflict management programs. Ms. Craig is a member of the State Bar of Michigan Health Care Law Section, the current Treasurer of the State Bar of Michigan’s ADR Section, a panelist with the American Arbitration Association, and a member of PREMi (Professional Resolution Experts of Michigan, LLC).

 

Donna Craig and Associates was recently voted a TOP LAWYER IN HEALTH CARE in 2009 by Detroit's Premier Business Journal

Donna Craig & Associates, PLC

As a service to the clients of Donna Craig & Associates, PLC, the Healthcare Law Newsletters summarize current events in the area of healthcare law. These Newsletters by no means cover all healthcare law topics, but highlights those developments and issues important to our clients. Should you have any questions regarding the topics in the Healthcare Law Newsletters or would like to share topics of interest to you for future issues, please contact:

Donna Craig & Associates, PLC
Phone: 248.858.9955
E-Mail: dcraig@donnacraigassoc.com

Donna Craig & Associates, PLC will be following relevant healthcare developments and report in future website postings.

Disclaimer
The topics of discussion in Special Edition Articles are not intended to constitute legal or business advice regarding any client’s particular issues or concerns, and should not be relied upon as such.
© 2008-2010 Donna Craig & Associates, PLC

Postings are provided by McLaren Advertising, Rochester Hills, Michigan. Phone 248.299.7900.