Wednesday, July 5, 2017

BCRA spells trouble for providers

By Alex Kacik  | July 5, 2017

California has been approaching universal healthcare coverage in large part thanks to the expansion of the Medicare and Medi-Cal programs under the Affordable Care Act.

Only 3.5% of California's population is uninsured and one out of every two children are covered by Medicaid, according to Marin General Hospital CEO Lee Domanico.

But that could all change under the Senate's bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, Domanico said.

"If that were to reverse itself it would really be devastating for those people and tough for us because that reimbursement could go to zero," he said. "Bad debts would go up, which had gone down through the Obamacare plan with more people insured through the exchanges and expansion of the Medi-Cal program."

If the Senate bill becomes law, providers could be faced with ballooning uncompensated care that forces service cutbacks, potential staffing reductions or hospital closures, health experts said.

The now-delayed bill, coined the Better Care Reconciliation Act, would slash the ACA's financial assistance to families and individuals who couldn't otherwise afford healthcare, cap Medicaid spending and roll back the Medicaid expansion afforded to states' most vulnerable populations. Those changes could cause 22 million Americans to lose coverage and send insurance premiums surging.

As patients lose access, more will turn to high-cost emergency rooms for care, increasing uncompensated care and squeezing providers' margins.

In other words, providers would be forced to regress.

"If Medicaid gets rolled back, there is no question there is going to be more uncompensated care," Cleveland Clinic outgoing CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove said. "When up to 22 million people lose coverage, that becomes a substantial risk, particularly for safety net and rural hospitals that are already losing money on patient care. But the implications go beyond patients and hospitals, they go to the communities, especially when their biggest employers are hospitals."

The proposed Senate bill would leave states to fill the funding gap or end coverage as the enhanced federal payments for Medicaid expansion would be phased out over three years, starting in 2021.

It would also cap the growth of federal Medicaid payments at the medical inflation rate, which is estimated to be 5.6% annually, beginning in 2020. Come 2025, the growth of those payments would be limited to the Consumer Price Index rate, which has averaged around 1.4% since the Great Recession.

The Congressional Budget Office found that Medicaid spending would be 26% lower in 2026 than it would be compared to current spending trends, and the gap would widen to about 35% in 2036.

The bill permits states to opt out of the ACA's mandated essential benefits, which would allow insurers to turn away patients who need maternity care, mental health treatment, chemotherapy and emergency care, among others.

"We will go back to the days where the uninsured showed up to ER," said Michael Rogers of the Catholic Health Association. "Catholic hospitals would be in a tough position because of our commitment to the poor and vulnerable."

The Urban Institute, A Washington D.C. think tank, estimated that state Medicaid spending would increase by an average of $565 million in 2022 under the proposed legislation as federal funding for Medicaid would dip by $102.2 billion. Most states would not fill the funding gap and many of the poor and indigent would be without coverage, health experts said.

As uncompensated care rises, operating margins would shrink, especially among hospitals in expansion states. Hospitals in D.C. and the 31 states that expanded Medicaid are projected to see a 78% increase in uncompensated care from 2017 to 2026, analysis from the Commonwealth Fund found. Eleven of those states would see costs at least double, including Kentucky and West Virginia, which would have 165% and 122% increases, respectively. Providers would also face negative credit ratings if the bill becomes law, Moody's Investment Services and Fitch ratings said.

Providers could face trouble with rising uncompensated care, dwindling reimbursements and increasing bad debts stemming to high-deductible plans, said Dr. Lisa Bielamowicz, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the Advisory Board.

"Medicaid cuts over time require huge adaptations of providers' business models," she said. "Some independent physicians who have a significant amount of Medicaid patients would have to close their practices and that burden will fall on health systems."

Even though the proposed bill will bolster Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments (DSH), that will not offset the Medicaid cuts, researchers said. Hospitals in Medicaid expansion states could experience an average 14% decline in Medicaid revenues from 2017 to 2016, the Commonwealth Fund estimated.

"The proposed Senate bill expands DSH payments but I am not sure that will offset the reduction in insurance coverage," said Patrick Redmon of the Berkeley Research Group. "It's hard to think about care coordination and improving population health when you don't see people on a consistent basis, can't manage care and only see people when they are absolutely sick."

The bill could also bring some unintended consequences as providers and physicians adapt and invest in infrastructure that supports new payment models. The majority of medical practice leaders are still not ready to comply with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, and sweeping changes in healthcare policy may further slow that process, said Rebecca Altman of the Berkeley Research Group.

"I wonder if there isn't a tertiary effect on MACRA adoption when all of sudden the volume of patients isn't there to make the return on managed care teams efficient," she said.

For now, providers will have to wait. Amid mounting dissent, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell delayed a vote on the ACA replacement bill until after the holiday recess.

"I haven't talked to any provider that supports the Senate bill," Cosgrove of Cleveland Clinic said. "The ACA has never been more popular."

Alex Kacik is the hospital operations reporter for Modern Healthcare in Chicago. Aside from hospital operations, he covers supply chain, legal and finance. Before joining Modern Healthcare in 2017, Kacik covered various business beats for seven years in the Santa Barbara, California region. He received a bachelor's degree in journalism from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in Central California.



Here's How UnitedHealth Would Be Insulated From AHCA Impact

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Trefis Team, Contributor

The American Health Care Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives in May but has yet to be voted on by the Senate, would repeal some parts of Obamacare and likely reduce per capita federal spending on health insurance. The proposed legislation would cut Medicaid substantially, thus impacting the revenues of health insurance companies in the U.S. However, the biggest health insurance company in the country, UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH), may be relatively unaffected. The insurer distanced itself from Obamacare in 2016 when it decided to back away from healthcare exchanges in many states. Additionally, Medicaid contributes less than 13% of the company’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, so any impact of Medicaid cuts would likely be fairly modest. Further, UnitedHealth’s primary growth driver of late has been the Optum business, which likely wouldn’t see much of an impact from the AHCA.

AHCA Unlikely To Be Passed Anytime Soon, But UNH Is Insulated

The AHCA, in its current form, could result in up to 23 million more uninsured people in the U.S. over the next decade, according to CBO estimates. Much of the decline would come from Medicaid. Accordingly, it seems unlikely to be approved by the Senate as currently constructed. Still, if it were to go through, UnitedHealth would be fairly insulated from any impact.
The biggest impact of the AHCA would likely be on UnitedHealth’s Medicaid Managed Care business, which contributes nearly 15% to United’s overall revenues. However, the impact would likely be limited, due to the reasons mentioned above – the Medicaid segment is the company’s fourth largest business, and most of its recent growth has been coming from Optum. Therefore, the company shouldn’t remain relatively unaffected whether the legislation is passed or not.

Federal Medicaid spending to fall 35% in two decades under Senate healthcare bill

By Mara Lee  | June 29, 2017

Senate Republicans' bill to repeal and replace Obamacare will cut federal Medicaid spending by 35% over two decades compared with current spending, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report released Thursday afternoon.

Democrats in the Senate had asked the nonpartisan agency to estimate outside the typical 10-year budget window, because the Better Care Reconciliation Act changes the growth rate for the per-capita cap in the ninth year.

The CBO report may make it more difficult for GOP leadership to line up moderate votes to pass the bill, and they may have to scrap the bill's proposed change to a lower inflation rate in 2025 to ensure passage.

Until then, the cap for the federal contribution is expected to be higher than projected growth for the elderly and disabled, and lower than the growth rate for healthy children and adults. All groups would have growth pegged to medical inflation, but the elderly and disabled would have medical inflation plus 1 percentage point. In 2025, that growth rate would be limited to general inflation, which the CBO projected would be 2.4% annually.

"In later years, (the) gap would continue to widen because of the compounding effect of the differences in spending growth rates," the CBO report said.

Disabled children are exempt from any cap in the bill.

The agency did not make an estimate of how the declining federal commitment to Medicaid would affect coverage, but said "enrollment in Medicaid would continue to fall."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said the bill would put states "in a budgetary vise, pushing them to choose between cutting Medicaid, raising taxes on the middle class, or cutting other important state spending like funding for schools."

"This analysis makes clear that the massive cuts to Medicaid are only going to get worse," he said.

Some Republicans have argued that the rollback of a 3.8% tax on "net investment income" such as dividends, capital gains or hedge fund compensation should be scrapped, but Sen. Bob Corker(R-Tenn.), one of the advocates of that provision, wants that money to fund individual insurance subsidies, rather than Medicaid.

That tax is only for individuals who earn more than $200,000 or married couples with a household income of $250,000 or more.

Mara Lee covers developments in health care policy in Congress and around Washington. This is her second time covering the Hill. In a previous life, she covered Midwestern delegations for Scripps and Gannett newspapers in Indiana and Michigan. Over her 20-year-plus-career, she’s spent more time outside the Beltway, both as a business reporter for The Hartford Courant and nine years in Ohio, mostly at the Dayton Daily News. She won an award for coverage of Oxycontin addiction Ohio in 2003, as well as for Census, business and breaking news coverage in Ohio and Connecticut. She’s a Virginia native, and graduated from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Twitter handle: MaraRhymesSarah


How the GOP Medicaid overhaul could become the next fiscal cliff

Even some Senate Republicans acknowledge the changes in their repeal bill might never see the light of day.

07/03/2017 05:10 AM EDT
POLITICO MAGAZINE
The Senate health care bill, if it becomes law, would set in motion a massive rollback of Medicaid funding beginning in three years. But even some Republican supporters acknowledge the full cuts might never happen.
Instead, they say it could become another Washington fiscal cliff, where lawmakers go to the brink of radical spending changes only to pull back — or have their successors pull back — just before the point of inflicting real pain in the face of intense pressure.
“We all expect that no matter what we do, somebody is going to come back and say they want it plussed up,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who believes the cuts are essential. “We’re trying to take the only entitlement that we actually have a realistic chance of putting on a sustainable path … and taking that opportunity to get that done.”
One Congress can’t stop its successors from changing the laws it passes. And there’s plenty of precedent for postponing pain, especially since one Congress’ attempt at fiscal responsibility may become a political liability to the next. One of the most notorious examples was the decade-plus “doc fix” fiasco, in which Congress repeatedly found money to avoid automatic cuts to doctors’ Medicare reimbursements mandated by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
Facing other “cliffs,” Congress has repeatedly prevented rules that bar many tax breaks from hitting the middle class. Lawmakers also quickly undid military pension cuts that were part of the 2013 bipartisan budget deal.
The Senate bill, if passed into law, would certainly result in political pain — it would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $772 billion over 10 years, shifting to an even more frugal spending path over time. It would also for the first time cap, or limit, the federal contribution to Medicaid, starting in 2020. And it would unwind Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.
It is expected that those cuts would create huge gaps in state budgets, and governors would have to make up the money somehow — or else drop people or trim benefits. Those pressures have Republicans openly speculating that a future Congress would face immense political pressure to block or delay the cuts.
But some Republicans think the funding changes are reasonable. Federal spending for many other programs is capped at the rate of inflation — the rate the GOP wants to set for Medicaid starting in 2025, said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
But even Alexander admitted that could change for Medicaid.
Pegging spending to grow at the regular inflation rate “has been a very sensible, prudent way to do it,” he said. “In the case of defense, we’re going to have to increase defense spending. We could make the same sort of decision about Medicaid if that turned out to be necessary.”
Traditionally, health care spending has grown faster than the rate of inflation.
The Medicaid portion of the Senate’s plan has gotten less attention than the Obamacare repeal. But the Medicaid overhaul would constitute the biggest changes to a program that covers about 74 million people since it was established more than 50 years ago. For decades, Republicans have sought to rein in the program’s spending and give states more flexibility.
The bill would both chop Obamacare’s enhanced Medicaid payments beginning in 2021 and convert the entire program to a budgeted system based on a flat payment to the state for each patient beginning in 2020.
“It’s a program that has got to stop growing so fast so we can have it 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). “So to the extent that we can give states an opportunity to experiment 50 different ways and make it work better for the people, that’s a good thing.”
Still, some Republicans admit they may not have the political stomach to go through with the most dramatic changes.
“I don’t think it will ever be instituted,” Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) said of the Medicaid cuts before he came out against the Senate bill.
“It’s kind of like the Cadillac tax,” he said, referring to an unpopular Obamacare tax on high-cost health care plans that Congress has already delayed as a result of political pressure. Nevada is one of 31 states that expanded Medicaid under the 2010 health care law.
Democrats contend that conservatives are being sold a bill of goods — that the health care bill offers sweeteners such as scaling back Obamacare in the beginning while the bigger cuts to Medicaid happen in the future.
The bill is "a whole lot of short-term spending that is guaranteed to happen, and a whole lot of promised, deeply unpopular, long-term structural reform that Democrats and Republicans would work together to undo before they ever came to pass," said a senior Democratic aide. "We’ll see if conservatives end up willing to once again be the suckers at the end of this backroom deal.”
That said, lawmakers may not have many chances to stop the spending reductions before they begin to take effect in 2020, if a bill passes. President Donald Trump's term doesn't end for four years, so Republicans would still control at least one branch of government. There would be competing pressures: The party's fiscal conservatives have long sought the Medicaid spending rollback that may make moderates queasy before an election.
On top of that, at least eight states have automatic triggers to unwind their Medicaid expansion programs if federal funding declines below Obamacare levels, many of them immediately. Three million people in those states — Arkansas, Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Washington state — gained coverage under the expansion.
And Republicans were unable to undo much of Obamacare even after Democrats lost control of the House.
“Once you get something into statute, it’s hard to change it,” Wicker said. President Barack “Obama lost the House two years after he got elected president and never got it back. And it was still almost impossible to make those substantive statutory changes to Obamacare. It’s on the books, and it takes a full action by the House, Senate and signature by the president to get it done.”
Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

How health care bill could hurt a program beloved in Trump country

The popular telemedicine program would face the axe under Medicaid cuts.
07/03/2017 05:27 AM EDT
One of the unintended effects of the Senate’s Obamacare repeal bill would be to slash money that pays for a project popular among Republicans — using long-distance video hookups called telemedicine to connect sick kids in rural schools to big-city medical experts.
In poor and rural areas, many in deep-red Trump Country, the school nurse is not just handing out bandages anymore; she’s become a de facto medical guide, marshaling medical care for poor kids with obesity, asthma and diabetes, while on the lookout for issues like child abuse and teen pregnancy.
“In many of our situations … the school nurse is the only health care provider a child ever sees,” said Kelli Marie Garber, who runs a growing school-based telemedicine program out of Charleston, South Carolina.
Telemedicine has become a powerful tool for these nurses, and Republicans like it — Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price calls it an “exciting innovation.” But the 26 percent cut to Medicaid planned by the administration and Congress for the next decade would deplete the funds that dozens of states are drawing on to make public schools a place of healing for schoolkids.
Medicare and private insurers often won’t pay for doctors to use telemedicine to treat adults. There is evidence it might save money, but congressional budget analysts are not convinced that’s the case for the older patients covered typically by Medicare. Medicaid, however, is increasingly covering use of the remote technology.
Many states have been rapidly expanding telemedicine in the schools programs, which generally serve parts of the nation where the uninsured are plentiful, health problems are grave, and school-based medical care is vital to children.
Nearly half the country’s Medicaid programs now pay for school-based telemedicine visits — six have added the service just in the last year, according to the American Telemedicine Association. States are becoming more comfortable with allowing doctors to treat patients they’ve never laid a stethoscope on in person.
GOP leaders are often the strongest proponents of the technology, seeing it as a way to get health care at low cost to farflung and underserved areas where doctors are few and far between.
At his confirmation hearings, Price said telemedicine would allow rural areas to tap “intellectual capital” to better treat patients. The country needs to look for more ways to pay for the technology, Price said, which is growing in areas of the Deep South in particular.
Telemedicine is about “promoting cost savings and quality care through the use of technology,” said Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn), the lead House sponsor of a major bill in Congress to expand payments for telemedicine.
But the Trump administration and the GOP-led Congress are pushing policies that could undermine telemedicine’s future in schools.
The Senate health care bill would cut $772 billion from Medicaid over the next decade, according to the CBO. The Trump administration’s budget proposal mirrors the House and Senate bills, which transform Medicaid into a per capita cap or a block grant.
The CBO estimates the two bills will mean about 14 million fewer Medicaid enrollees. School-based clinics get their money from insurance payments, grants and private support. But Medicaid, which covers more than 70 million Americans, predominantly serves children, and schools rely heavily upon it to support use of telemedicine. If Medicaid coverage is jeopardized, it throws the future of school clinics into doubt.
“If the Medicaid reimbursement isn’t there, you’re not going to make it,” Steve North, medical director and founder of the Center for Rural Health Innovation, said of school-based clinics. “You’re not even going to come close.”
If Medicaid is funded through block grants, states may have to be pickier over eligibility and coverage. Core services like hospital care will probably be maintained, but novel services like school-based tele-health would be vulnerable.
Well-funded school districts may be able to afford the tens of thousands of dollars required to purchase and maintain telemedicine equipment and train people to use it. But the districts that need the service most often can’t afford it without state support.
 “Schools are going to be much more likely to get on board with this if there’s a little bit of money coming back,” said John Schlitt, president of the School-Based Health Alliance, the country’s leading advocate of school-based clinics.
While school-based health centers are supported by many Washington lobbies like pediatricians and community health centers, they aren’t generally a priority.
“It falls so far down on an administrator’s list of things, it’s tough to find regular advocates for the programs outside of those school systems that already have school-based health centers,” North said.
“If we continue to weaken access points for low-income kids, then the schools are going to be having to figure out a way to meet those needs,” Schlitt said. “There’s only so many ways in which states are going to be able to absorb that kind of a financial cut.”
The expansion of telemedicine in schools reflects the changing status of school nurses. Where they used to treat “boo boos,” and make sure kids were vaccinated and screened for diseases like scoliosis, now their responsibilities may even include dentistry and primary care.
“It has changed from the school nurse who used to deal with colds, headaches, and stomach aches to caring daily for some very complex children — seizures, cerebral palsy, diabetes,” said Nancy Cavanaugh, health policy chair for the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. “It is an exhausting job.”
“They’re having more and more added to their plate,” North said. This makes telehealth more attractive, especially for kids who lack access to health care and need to see a specific kind of doctor.
“The goal of school-based tele-health is to support school nurses and be a resource for them when do they do have a student who needs care above what they can provide,” said Kathryn King Cristaldi, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics section on tele-health.
Research generally shows telemedicine in schools helps kids avoid the costly emergency room because it forestalls the need for in-person care. It has helped reduce absenteeism and saved families money, according to a 2014 literature review from Brigham Young University.
 “The reasons kids fail in school and the reasons they have poor health are all the same,” Schlitt said.
School nurses are typically registered nurses or social workers. When a nurse can’t handle a child’s illness, he or she can use telemedicine to communicate with a better-equipped school clinic, or draw in a universe of doctors who can treat at a distance.
South Carolina sees telemedicine as a solution to its provider shortage. The state invested in telemedicine equipment for several schools, and its Medicaid program covers the treatment costs. A school telemedicine pilot began four years ago and now offers the service in 45 locations, a majority of those in “very rural areas,” Garber said. Nearly the entire state is considered medically underserved.
The telemedicine program at Children’s Health of Dallas connects to more than 90 schools in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and reaches schools as far east as Tyler and as far south as San Antonio.
Bassett Health Care in Upstate New York connects 19 rural schools that lack pediatric subspecialists to doctors in Rochester.
The telemedicine industry wants more states to follow Washington state’s lead in liberally reimbursing the technology. Washington recognizes “any location determined by patient receiving the health service” as an acceptable originating site for coverage. Medicare generally pays for telemedicine only when the patient is in a clinic or hospital.
Public schools in Howard County, Maryland, introduced telemedicine in 2014 and have since expanded its use to six elementary schools. The program’s success caught the eye of Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) who has sponsored the Hallways to Health Act (H.R. 1027), which would create a demonstration program for school-based telemedicine programs nationally.
The bill is backed by Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) in the Senate, but its future is uncertain because it lacks a Republican co-sponsor.
Despite their general enthusiasm for telemedicine, GOP members are turned off by the bill’s likely hefty price tag.

What Tax Breaks? Those Promised In GOP Plans Go Mostly To Top 1%

By Julie Appleby July 5, 2017

There’s much talk on Capitol Hill about the tax cuts included in the Republican health plans, but unless you are a frequent user of tanning beds or have personal wealth that puts you in the top 1 percent, you might not feel much effect from them.
Specifically, both the House and the Senate plan would change or eliminate more than a dozen taxes that were levied to help pay for the Affordable Care Act’s insurance subsidies and to bolster Medicare and expand Medicaid. Republicans and other ACA critics have argued the taxes are onerous on businesses and families.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate proposal would result in $700 billion in lost revenue from the federal Treasury over the next 10 years.
Here are three things you need to know about them:
1.     What are these taxes targeted for repeal?
The biggest ones fall into two buckets:
In the first bucket is a 0.9 percent increase in the existing Medicare payroll tax on income above $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for couples.
There is also a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income — as in stocks, bonds, interest and capital gains — that kicks in after $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. As Senate leaders consider revisions to the bill, some senators — including Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee — suggest leaving the investment tax in place to provide more money for subsidies, but others object to that idea. It would also present a major difference from the House-passed bill.
Still, if both of those taxes in the ACA were repealed, high-income Americans together would pay $230.8 billion less in taxes over 10 years, according to the CBO analysis.
In the second bucket are taxes on the drug and medical device industry, which says those levies have a chilling effect on innovation, affect its ability to hire more workers or are passed along to consumers in the form of higher health care prices or premiums. Drug companies would experience an estimated $25.7 billion cut, while medical device makers would get about $19.6 billion in savings. Some of the cuts would start as early as this calendar year.
There’s also relief for insurers. The GOP plans would eliminate a tax set on all insurers based on their market share. Congress waived it for this year, hoping the one-time move would help slow premium increases. The CBO analysis of the Senate bill, for instance, found it would save the industry $144.7 billion over the next decade.
Smaller — but not insignificant — cuts come from eliminating some other taxes, including a limit — $2,600 this year — on how much workers can annually set aside tax-free in flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to pay for things like over-the-counter medications, eyeglasses or copayments for doctor’s office visits. The plans would also increase the amount people could put in tax-protected Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The Senate proposal would also revert tax law back to pre-ACA days in setting the threshold for medical deductions at 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income; the ACA had boosted that to 10 percent. The House approach is even more generous.
And, of course, not to be forgotten, the GOP plans would delete a 10 percent tax on the use of tanning beds.
2.     You likely won’t see a direct or big tax break unless you are wealthy.
The ACA significantly increased average taxes on high-income people mainly through the investment income tax and the Medicare payroll tax. The top 1 percent and other high earners are also the group that would benefit most from the repeal, according to several analyses, including one by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C.
Under the GOP proposals, the top 1 percent — those earning $875,000 a year or more in 2026 — would get an average tax cut of about $40,000, while middle-income people earning about $50,000 to $90,000 would see about a $300 cut, according to Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the center.
Still, those earning about $28,000 or less may get a boost from the higher cap on tax-protected FSA or HSA accounts or by being able to deduct medical expenses, possibly saving an average $180 annually, he said.
3.     How will the federal government offset the loss of tax revenue, and what will that mean for insurance or other programs?
Even though the tax cuts and other changes would reduce Treasury revenue by about $700 billion over the next decade, spending cuts exceed that amount, so the deficit actually goes down by $321 billion, the CBO says.
The biggest spending cuts hit the Medicaid program, which provides health coverage for low-income children and adults, including paying for nearly half of all births and much of the cost of nursing home care. Spending on Medicaid by 2026 would shrink by 26 percent compared with what it would be under the ACA.
As to other effects, the number of Americans without health insurance coverage would likely rise. Because the GOP proposals cut the tax people pay for not having insurance, the CBO estimates that far fewer people would enroll in coverage. That, coupled with smaller subsidies to help lower- and middle-income people buy their own insurance and cuts in Medicaid, could lead to 22 million fewer insured Americans by 2026, the CBO estimated. States could choose, however, to try to make up for federal Medicaid spending cuts and maintain current levels of coverage, but that would probably involve raising state taxes, cutting other budget items, such as education, or both.

Hospital executives lobby senators who could swing the vote on ACA repeal

By Mara Lee  | June 29, 2017

Some hospital executives in states with senators critical to passing a healthcare reform bill have made their opposition to the legislation known and they're keeping a laser focus on Medicaid expansion.

Doug Bentz, CEO of Roane General Hospital in Spencer, W.Va., said he met with Republican Sen. Shelly Moore Capito in person about 10 days ago, along with about a dozen other hospital executives, and said he'd be on a conference call with her again Thursday.

Bentz said he's known Capito for 15 years. "She's got to be under a tremendous amount of pressure" to vote yes, he said. He added: "I've got confidence in her. There's nothing about her actions in the past that would lead her to abandon the Medicaid expansion population."

Both the Senate and House bills propose larger overhauls to Medicaid and what the Affordable Care Act did to promote expansion for newly eligible adults than repealing Obamacare or many of its provisions.

That's why Bentz and his colleagues are going for a full-court press on lawmakers who could make or break the proposed legislation.

Republicans cannot count on a single Democratic vote, so Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell can afford to lose only two Republicans and still pass the bill. Some provisions in the original draft seemed targeted to swaying moderates—such as exempting Alaska from a provision designed to lower federal Medicaid dollars in high-spending states.

But McConnell is trying to add more to nail down the majority. A White House aide told Axios the bill could pass after McConnell "bribes" these senators with promises of funding some of their pet projects.

Bentz, for one, said he only talked to Capito about the importance of the Medicaid expanded population. He said it would be wrong to say it's vital to the hospital's continued success. Instead, he said, "It's vital to our continued existence." Before the expansion, Bentz' critical-access hospital and its outpatient primary-care practices weren't paid for what they did 12% of the time. That has fallen to 1.5%.

He said a longer-phase out of the enhanced match as currently proposed in the Senate bill is not enough. Nor is $45 billion in opiate addiction funding over 10 years, an increase of $43 billion from the original draft.

In fiscal 2015, spending on Medicaid expansion was nearly $58 billion, nearly all of it by the federal government.

And West Virginia might not be able to make up the difference between funding 10% of its expansion costs and 26% after the enhanced match ended.

"I think they would want to, but I'm not sure they can," Bentz said. He said the state just had a "very ugly budget process to fill in the holes this year."

West Virginia has the second-highest federal Medicaid match in the country, because of the low incomes earned there.

The majority of Roane General's beds are nursing home beds—35 of the 60—but Bentz hasn't even brought up what a per-capita cap with a growth rate linked to inflation would do to the facility. He said 90% to 95% of the long-term-care beds are covered by Medicaid.

In Toledo, Ohio, Kevin Webb, chief acute and post-acute care officer at ProMedica, has not met with Sen. Rob Portman, the state's Republican senator, but has emailed him about repeal and replace.

"The Senate version calls for gradually rolling back the Medicaid expansion over a number of years, and I think that's a big mistake," he said.

About 700,000 adults became eligible for Medicaid in Ohio through the expansion. Although Webb pointed to Ohio's opiate epidemic—the state has the most fatal overdoses in the country—as a reason to keep the enhanced match for the expansion, he said more funding for treatment would not be an adequate substitute.

"I think that's just shooting your left foot to save your right foot," he said. "It seems crazy to me."

Webb said Portman responded to his email, saying "he's obviously concerned about people losing coverage."

Mercy Health, which has 23 hospitals across Ohio and Kentucky, declined to say whether anyone from the Catholic system had lobbied Portman on the bill, in person or otherwise. Instead, a spokeswoman said: "Mercy Health leaders are actively engaged in discussions with political and religious leaders, and that will continue." She said there is a common message for both Kentucky and Ohio politicians.

McConnell represents Kentucky. So does Rand Paul, who says he can't support the bill because it doesn't do enough to eliminate Obamacare provisions.

In Tennessee, where Republican Sen. Bob Corker has said he has problems with the bill, a Maury Regional Medical Center executive emailed him and fellow Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, but the hospital did not disclose what was said.

Kansas Republican Jerry Moran is another senator who has said he can't support the first draft of the Senate bill, but it's not clear whether he thinks it's too generous or not generous enough compared with current law.

"I remain committed to working with my colleagues and continuing conversations with patients and providers in Kansas to find a path forward that truly repeals and replaces Obamacare with a plan that makes certain Kansans will have access to more affordable and better quality healthcare," he said Tuesday.

Goodland Regional Hospital CEO Bill Widener said he hasn't met with Moran on the healthcare bill, but if he did, he would tell him the proposed per-capita cap for Medicaid "would be a disaster for rural health."

Goodland Regional is a 25-bed rural critical access hospital. He said roughly 20% of Goodland's revenue comes from Medicaid. Uncollectable bills from patients is equal to about 5% of services, he said. Kansas did not expand Medicaid to adults without children at home, and Widener said he wishes it had.

If reimbursement falls as states try to manage cost-shifting from the federal government under a per-capita cap, Widener is worried more doctors will refuse to see Medicaid patients, which will only mean more people will enter the healthcare system at the ER.

Mara Lee covers developments in health care policy in Congress and around Washington. This is her second time covering the Hill. In a previous life, she covered Midwestern delegations for Scripps and Gannett newspapers in Indiana and Michigan. Over her 20-year-plus-career, she’s spent more time outside the Beltway, both as a business reporter for The Hartford Courant and nine years in Ohio, mostly at the Dayton Daily News. She won an award for coverage of Oxycontin addiction Ohio in 2003, as well as for Census, business and breaking news coverage in Ohio and Connecticut. She’s a Virginia native, and graduated from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Twitter handle: MaraRhymesSarah

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170629/NEWS/170629865?utm_source=modernhealthcare&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20170629-NEWS-170629865&utm_campaign=dose