Will they or won't they?
The potential complexities surrounding state decisions over whether to expand their Medicaid programs now that the Supreme Court justices have eliminated fiscal penalties for not doing so continue to emerge. The law required Medicaid eligibility for all people with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level with a 5% leeway up to 138%.
The latest wrinkle in the expansion question was highlighted Tuesday by Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. He reminded attendees at a Washington health policy event that regardless of what various governors decide to do with their states' Medicaid programs, any decision may be countermanded by their legislatures.
But as a starting point to understanding where states are headed on the size of their Medicaid programs, Modern Healthcare recently contacted all 50 governors about their plans, as they stand now.
We asked whether states were planning to expand; planning to not expand; or undecided on expansion.
Here are the positions of the 26 governors' offices that responded, including several that specified they were waiting for the outcome of the November presidential and congressional elections.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
With much of the national attention focused on the largest moving parts of the 2010 federal healthcare overhaul, it's easy for the numerous smaller provisions to get lost in the shuffle. But the ongoing political battle over the fate of the law also has affected those initiatives.
One such small part of the 2,700-page law but big to providers was the new National Health Care Workforce Commission.
The first federally appointed advisory body fully focused on the healthcare workforce had its inaugural 15 members appointed by the comptroller general last year. But nothing else has happened with the group since then because Congress never approved any operational funds for it.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
There must be something about the July heat in Washington that gets House Republicans fired up about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a yet-to-be appointed panel the 2010 healthcare reform law created to control the per-capita growth rate in Medicare.
A year ago this week, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before two House committees to answer questions about the purpose and merits of the 15-member board. And this week—on the same day the House voted a second time to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act—Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), a physician, sent a letter to the AARP that asked the organizations representing America's seniors to publicly support repealing the board.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
After the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last week on the healthcare reform law, providers and payers can resume their focus on pending federal regulations. But they shouldn't hold their breath that HHS will release those rules before the November elections.
Voters will visit the polls in four months, which doesn't leave much time for HHS to issue some of the complicated regulations that healthcare providers and payers have anticipated. I spoke about this issue recently with Anne Hance and Eric Zimmerman, partners at the Washington office of law firm McDermott, Will and Emery. As Hance explained, these regulations include a proposed or final rule on essential health benefit packages that the Affordable Care Act requires of health plans. HHS has released two bulletins to offer the industry some guidance on essential health benefits, but they were not actual regulations and they generated many questions for the industry.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
Supporters and opponents of the 2010 federal healthcare overhaul have been engaged in a furious war of words in recent weeks over whether the law could stand without the individual mandate. But the apparent attempt to influence the thinking of the U.S. Supreme Court justices appears to be based on a flimsy premise.
Underlying the root of the arguments over whether the law could or should stand without the individual mandate is the broadly acknowledged reality that the mandate is both extremely unpopular by itself and also the least popular of the law's many provisions.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
Some congressional Democrats have blamed their historic 2010 losses on their lack of campaigning on the healthcare law—enacted with only Democratic support. But in recent months, other congressional Democrats have publicly urged their colleagues facing re-election this year to avoid a repeat of that mistake by aggressively campaigning on the law.
One senior Democrat not urging congressional Democrats to tout the law's many popular provisions is one of its primary authors.
I recently asked Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, if Democrats should be running on the healthcare law—his law—in this election.
“That's up to each candidate; up to each senator,” he said in a brief interview. “My personal belief—I can only speak for myself—I stoutly defend it and I think the court's going to approve it.”
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
Add another influential Washington figure whose family is directly benefitting from provisions of the healthcare overhaul. But this time it's someone who actually supports the law.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) made news last month when he acknowledged that his 23-year-old daughter qualified for coverage under his congressional insurance policy because of the law's requirement that insurers cover any adult child up to 26 years old who applies for coverage. Brown famously campaigned as what was then believed to be the key vote to stop the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from passing the Senate.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
Refreshed after (another) brief recess, House members will return to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to a summer session that includes some significant healthcare votes.
First, the lower chamber will consider House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton's (R-Mich.) FDA bill that Upton's panel passed earlier this month. Shortly after, House Republicans will continue to chip away at the Affordable Care Act while the country awaits a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the law—in whole or in part—will stand.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
