Colorado Forges Ahead On A New Model For Health Care While Nation Waits

DENVER — With the nation’s capital mired in gridlock and the Affordable Care Act facing a dire legal challenge, the prospects of lowering health care costs for Americans this year seem unlikely.

Just don’t tell that to Coloradans.

Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate and a Democratic governor eager to push aggressive health care measures have turned Colorado into one of the foremost health policy laboratories in the country. State lawmakers have taken swift action on many of the same health issues being debated at the federal level, including a government-run health plan known as a public option, surprise medical billing, drug importation and high drug costs.

Colorado has emerged as a potential model for revamping health care in other states — and provided a glimpse of what a sweeping Democratic victory in November might mean for Americans.

“From a national perspective, this is known as one of the cool places for health care reform, where people are trying new ideas, where there is leadership, where there is community, where there are all the critical elements to get something done,” said Dr. Jay Want, executive director of the Peterson Center for Healthcare, a New York-based health policy think tank.

Full Speed Ahead

Colorado’s push started in earnest when Gov. Jared Polis took office in January 2019 with the promise of helping consumers cut health care costs. He literally created an Office of Saving People Money on Health Care in his first month on the job. What followed was a four-month legislative session in which lawmakers pushed through a decade’s worth of health care bills.

“You can argue it was the most consequential legislative session for health care since Colorado expanded Medicaid much earlier this decade,” said Joe Hanel, director of communications for the Colorado Health Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on health policy analysis.

Lawmakers passed a reinsurance bill that shielded insurance plans from the costs of their sickest patients, resulting in a 20% drop in 2020 premiums for Coloradans who buy their coverage on the individual market, not through their employers.

Surprise billing protections, which took effect Jan. 1, cap what out-of-network doctors or other medical providers can charge when patients receive services in hospitals that are not part of their insurance network. The new provision establishes an arbitration process for ongoing billing disputes.

Legislators capped copays for insulin at $100 per month and approved the importation of drugs from Canada, once federal authorities establish the process for doing so.

And the legislature authorized the Polis administration to develop a public option proposal that would provide competition to private insurance carriers selling plans on the individual market.

Hanel said state officials have taken an aggressive approach to reining in health care costs.

“They’ve really transformed their agencies in a short year or so,” he said.

For example, Colorado Insurance Commissioner Michael Conway has shifted the Division of Insurance from mainly an actuarial agency reviewing rate filings into more of an advocate for consumers. The division is developing a standard for insurance that would consider whether premiums are affordable when approving insurance rates.

A Public Option

This year, the legislature will decide whether to implement the public option plan developed by the Polis administration.

While many thought that plan would create a government-run alternative to private insurance similar to a Medicare plan open to anyone, the final draft retains a role for insurance companies in administering public option plans.

The plan would also benchmark hospital payment rates to a percentage above what Medicare pays, developing a formula to adjust those rates for each hospital. A small rural hospital would be paid differently from a large urban hospital, while independent hospitals would be paid differently from chain hospitals.

Insurance carriers would be limited to using no more than 15% of total premiums collected for administrative costs and profits, which is lower than the Affordable Care Act cap. They would also be required to use any rebates from drug companies to reduce patients’ premiums. The state is asking legislators for the authority to force hospitals and health plans to participate if they won’t do so voluntarily.

“What Colorado is doing is very innovative. There is really only one other state, Washington state, that is doing anything comparable to a public option,” said Billy Wynne, a Washington, D.C.-based health policy consultant who recently formed the Public Option Institute. “Other states have been looking at it and will pursue similar programs in the future, especially if [Colorado] can pull off the ‘triple lindy’ and make this successful.”

Industry Pushback

Hospital representatives have expressed skepticism about the public option plan, which they see as mainly targeting hospitals to achieve savings.

“The rate-setting as it is currently proposed is a 40% hit to some hospitals,” said Katherine Mulready, senior vice president and chief strategy officer of the Colorado Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals. Hospitals and other providers, she said, may not be able to maintain the same level of services and access now available.

But state officials point to recent studies suggesting prices at Colorado hospitals are among the most expensive in the country: A Rand Corp. study found that Colorado hospitals charge three to four times the Medicare rate, and an analysis of the Denver market showed the area’s 27 hospitals netted a combined $2 billion in pretax profits in 2018, with average profit margins exceeding 19%.

Hospitals say they must charge higher rates to privately insured patients to make up for the shortfall from Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured patients. But the state released a report in January showing that even when Medicaid rates went up and the need for charity care went down, hospitals still raised their prices.

“We’re getting close to the mark because some of the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies sent out a mailer against the public option,” Polis said in a Jan. 14 public forum on the proposal. “We must be getting something right if they’re that worried about it. But it also adds insult to injury for those of us who are consumers of medical services … to know they’re using some of that money from overcharging to lobby against reforms that are saving people money. That is rubbing salt in the wounds.”

Insurers are also wary of the plan.

“We are very concerned — and I would say opposed — that the government will tell us the product, the price and the place that we have to sell,” said Amanda Massey, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans. “That is fundamentally opposed to private business and competition.”

The Colorado Medical Society, which represents physicians, issued a statement generally supporting the goals of the public option plan but didn’t go so far as to endorse it.

Blueprint For The Nation?

The public option would initially be available only to those consumers who buy policies on the individual market in 2022, estimated to be fewer than 7% of the state’s population. State officials said that they plan to later expand to the small-group market and that they expect the lower prices will put pressure on rates for large-group employer-sponsored plans as well.

The proposal, while not as disruptive as a “Medicare for All” or single-payer approach, represents a step toward government-run health care.

“What the state is doing is intervening, to some degree, in commercial negotiations between plans and hospitals,” Wynne said. “Let’s be honest: The state will be leaning on hospitals on their participation and reimbursement rate, and that is a tremendous benefit to health plans.”

Colorado’s approach could provide a blueprint for any moderate Democratic presidential candidates promoting a public option on the national level, much in the way Massachusetts provided the basic framework for the Affordable Care Act.

“Colorado is doing it and is ahead of the curve,” Wynne said. “If one of those people wins, they’re going to be looking to this state as a model for what to try to help other states do.”

Locally, Democrats also are betting that by addressing what Coloradans have identified as their highest priority — reducing the cost of health care — they’ll be well positioned to build on their state majority in the 2020 elections.

“I haven’t met a single voter,” Polis quipped recently, “who said, ‘I don’t pay enough for my health care.’”



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Readers And Tweeters Dive Into Debate Over ‘Medicare For All’

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.


Savings For All?

Your criticism about former Vice President Joe Biden’s “Medicare for All” cost estimates is spot-on but leaves out important savings (“KHN & PolitiFact HealthCheck: Would ‘Medicare For All’ Cost More Than U.S. Budget? Biden Says So. Math Says No,” Feb. 14). Under Biden’s plan, private insurance stays intact, meaning there are premiums and point-of-service costs that do not appear as taxes but are added to the nation’s health care expense. Medicare for All, on the other hand, is zero at the point of service, meaning Americans would have no financial qualms seeking comprehensive care. Public options add bureaucratic costs, are subject to personal income fluctuations and have deductibles and copays. We depend on organizations like yours to present the full picture. Here’s hoping you will, in the public’s interest.

― Dr. Donald Green, Pennington, New Jersey


— Manuel Freire, Fort Lauderdale, Florida


For Alzheimer’s Patients Like Me, Knowing Is Half The Battle

I want to thank Judith Graham for her piece discussing the uncertainty and fear patients feel when faced with the potential onset of Alzheimer’s disease or dementia (“Stalked By The Fear That Dementia Is Stalking You,” Feb. 21).

As an Alzheimer’s patient with a confirmed diagnosis, I know all too well how unsettling it can be to suffer from cognitive decline without knowing the nature of your condition. For me, it started with little things like forgetting a name or misplacing a set of house keys. Still, it wasn’t until I applied to participate in an Alzheimer’s clinical trial and received a PET scan identifying amyloid protein buildup in my brain did I definitively know I had the disease.

Like many of the patients discussed in the article, dealing with these early warning signs can be an enormous source of anxiety — especially when it’s unclear whether or not the cause is Alzheimer’s or another cognitive issue. That’s why getting a precise diagnosis was such a critical step for myself and my husband, Jim.

As mentioned in the article, amyloid PET scans are not fully covered by Medicare, a critically important detail, which I believe must be remedied. As the prevalence of Alzheimer’s continues to grow as our population ages, expanding access to diagnostic tools that can identify this disease will become ever more critical. I remain optimistic that our representatives in Washington can come together and address this issue ― so more patients like me don’t have to live under a cloud of uncertainty.

— Geri Taylor, New York City


An Infusion Of Debt

Glad you are pointing this out (“Patients Stuck With Bills After Insurers Don’t Pay As Promised,” Feb. 7). It’s happening again, post-Affordable Care Act. For us, it’s my husband’s battle with multiple sclerosis, but more the battle with his insurer. It approved his treatment cost for a new drug, sent a letter saying everything was covered. Then, lo and behold, we get a bill for $4,000 that it said we had to pay. No reason or rationale given. So now we are on a payment plan with the hospital that gave him his infusion. Not sure why we even bother with paying our premiums in the first place, considering the out-of-pocket expense and worthlessness of preapprovals; it doesn’t really matter. Please keep writing these articles ― it helps.

― Margaret Paez, Los Angeles


When Choice Of Hospitals Is A Life-Or-Death Choice

Thanks so much for your coverage of death-with-dignity situations (“Terminally Ill, He Wanted Aid-In-Dying. His Catholic Hospital Said No,” Jan. 29). We all need to know as much as possible about the institutions and structures that may prevent patients from choosing a dignified death. Please consider linking to the Catholic ethics rules so readers can read them for themselves. Please make us a map of Colorado showing the hospitals that are abiding by these rules. Please explain that emergency services in rural areas may have no choice but to take patients to the nearest (possibly non-law-abiding) hospital. Rewired has written about Eastern hospitals where serious pregnancy issues were poorly treated by Catholic hospitals.

Many of us do not understand that hospital choice may become a life choice and doctor choice may also become a life choice. And, please, also feature regularly and loudly all the practitioners and organizations being formed to protect patients’ legal right to die. Thanks so much for the good work that you do.

― Diane Curlette, Boulder, Colorado


Taking Pains Over Statistics

In stories about the opioid crisis (“No Quick Fix: Missouri Finds Managing Pain Without Opioids Isn’t Fast Or Easy,” Feb. 13), I always see total death statistics but never a breakdown of how many of the fatalities represent responsible legal users vs. illegal users.

A lot of us elderly folks have a very hard time getting our pain meds nowadays. Thirty used to last me five to seven months, and I took them only when I couldn’t get to sleep due to pain throughout my body. We have discussed it on our seniors’ webpage in our rural area and many of us used to get them. Overdoses and addiction aren’t the norm and aren’t even in the realm of our experiences. Why do we have to pay for others’ mistakes? They don’t outlaw cars even though many people die from wrecks caused by bad drivers!

― William Scriven, Valley Springs, California


— Nicolas Terry, Indianapolis


Collateral Damage From Insurers’ Dispute

When I read Brian Krans’ article about the Dignity-Cigna dispute (“Patients Caught In Crossfire Between Giant Hospital Chain, Large Insurer,” Feb. 6), I was reminded of my own situation: In California, Oscar dropped coverage for all UCLA care facilities in its Covered California (Affordable Care Act) plans, as of this year. I don’t know how many people use Oscar, but the UCLA system is a major health care provider here in West L.A. There’s no indication that there’s a dispute — this is represented as a final decision. UCLA is gone!

I figured I could get similar care from the Providence network, but my first choice for a primary care physician proved a bit odd: On our first visit, he presented at least four ideas that seem outside the medical mainstream. With some embarrassment, I asked for a different PCP. That physician ordered lab work but said no one in the building was authorized by Oscar to do blood draws, so I was sent to a facility in another city … which turned out to be out of business. I was finally referred to a third facility, which turned out to be more convenient than the last ― but the inconvenient run-around for something as simple as a blood draw and the penny-pinching by my insurance company do not bode well for the future of American medicine.

This is the second disruption I’ve had in insurance providers since the ACA began, and another indication that our current health care system is still very broken.

— Gary Davis, Los Angeles


— Scott Gordon, Fennimore, Wisconsin


Raising A Red Flag On Animal Rights Group

As a registered dietitian, I do not promote the keto diet. Mentioned in the article “As VA Tests Keto Diet To Help Diabetic Patients, Skeptics Raise Red Flags” (Feb. 3) is the group Physicians for Responsible Medicine, which is an extreme animal rights group with ties to PETA. About 3% of its members are physicians. Attending a seminar on nutrition for cardiovascular disease, I was dismayed to see the speaker had ties to Physicians for Responsible Medicine. After hearing about all the terrible effects of eating animal products, when the speaker could no longer contain himself and shouted out, “You don’t eat dead animals, do you?” I walked out and called my professional association to complain. Please do not give credibility to this organization.

― Mary Lucius, Beavercreek, Ohio


— Nancy Coney, South Bend, Indiana


Price-Gouging At Its Core

I read your most recent story on surprise medical billing (“When Your Doctor Is Also A Lobbyist: Inside The War Over Surprise Medical Bills,” Feb. 12) and found it to be largely one-sided against physicians and, somewhat, hospitals. Although private equity certainly is an influence in the conversation, very little to any time was spent discussing the efforts of insurance companies to continually drive down reimbursements. Furthermore, when we look at Medicare rates, which insurance companies rates are based on, the actual reimbursement has not significantly increased over the past few decades when you account for inflation or the consumer price index. So to paint the picture that physicians are trying to gouge patients does not seem very fair. While there are always a few bad apples and opportunists, the majority of physicians simply want to be paid fairly. Remember: Over the past few years, insurance companies have reported record profits — billions per fiscal quarter. Why are we not talking about why more of our premiums are not going to the provision of health care and instead to shareholders? I think the article fails to paint the entire picture for a lay audience. Nowhere does it report the amount of money spent on lobbying by the insurance industry.

― Dr. Shamie Das, Atlanta


— Gene Christian, Memphis, Tennessee


Health Care’s High-Cost Formula Goes Beyond Drug Prices

What patients care about more than drug prices is how much they have to pay out-of-pocket for their critical medications (“Watch: Let’s Talk About Trump’s Health Care Policies,” Feb. 4). Because of high-deductible health plans and tiered formularies, what patients pay at the pharmacy counter often has less to do with the list price of the drugs they need and more to do with the design of their health benefits. It is especially troubling that high-value drugs for chronic conditions like diabetes are often subject to unaffordable cost sharing that hits disproportionately at the beginning of the benefit year. Employers and health plans need to exempt these drugs from high deductibles as now permitted by the IRS. The same goes for Medicare Part D, which hugely penalizes seriously ill patients at the start of each year when they have yet to reach the catastrophic threshold.

Clearly, the problem of high drug prices needs to be addressed, but this will require a systematic and comprehensive approach that is certain to be resisted by one vested interest or another. In the meantime, patients need immediate relief from unaffordable out-of-pocket costs. Some steps that should be taken immediately include exempting high-value care from plan deductibles and capping and smoothing out-of-pocket costs in Medicare Part D. Much, if not all, of the cost associated with these measures can be offset by not paying for low- and no-value care that costs billions per year.

― Daniel Klein, president & CEO of the Patient Access Network (PAN) Foundation, Washington, D.C.


Cause For Investigation

The example you give presents an illegal activity by the home health agency (“Why Home Health Care Is Suddenly Harder To Come By For Medicare Patients,” Feb. 3). At a minimum, that agency should have a complaint registered against them, if not investigated by the Office of the Inspector General. The agency lied about Medicare not covering the patient’s needs. And they should have had the patient sign an ABN/NOMNC (Advance Beneficiary Notice/Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage) and explained it to the patient as required, so he could choose to appeal with the Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) for coverage of medically necessary care.

Kaiser Health News needs to provide education for the elderly and families to make sure they don’t fall prey to this type of behavior. If the agency simply says “I don’t have the staff to cover you,” they are responsible to assist the patient in finding another agency. But they cannot elect to just stop providing a medically necessary service, just as they cannot keep seeing someone when it is not medically necessary. Key here is to get people to know their rights as a Medicare beneficiary.

― Edward Dieringer, Salt Lake City


— Tom Cassels, Arlington, Virginia


— Peg Graham, Washington, D.C.


Privacy Concern: I Lack Seamless Access To My Own Records

I work in a medical center and have taken HIPAA training repeatedly over the years. I have also noted the staggering amount of money spent on medical electronic records. Yet in four attempts over a 20-year period, I have yet to get my medical records sent from one doctor or practice to another. I could not get records of my husband’s hospital stay sent to his primary physician, dental records sent from one dentist to another and, this fall, the pertinent records when my rheumatologist changed practices. My insurance paid for blood tests four times a year and X-rays over a five-year period. I have contacted the facilities and submitted a complaint to HHS Office for Civil Rights, which appears to be the correct office.

I find it unacceptable that, with all the talk about how expensive medical care is, tests over time are not easily available to patients when requested. I read Kaiser Health News regularly and at least I feel informed about what can go wrong. Thank you.

— Susan Klimley, New York City


— Dr. Sarah Nguyen, Los Angeles



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Growing Concerns Of Coronavirus Should Spur Plans – Not Panic – In The Workplace

Chances are, if you work for a large company, you received an email like one sent to Volkswagen employees Monday: Coronavirus concerns mean some limits on business travel, everyone should remember to “wash your hands frequently” and stay home if sick.

As the viral disease, dubbed COVID-19, continues to spread, some employers are canceling conferences and limiting travel, checking supplies and dusting off their emergency preparedness plans, just as they have for previous outbreaks or for natural disasters, such as hurricanes or earthquakes.

All workplaces, say corporate benefit and health experts, should have plans that focus on preparation, not fear. Currently, cases of COVID-19 are still rare in the U.S. — far fewer than seasonal influenza cases.

“Scaring the crap out of employees isn’t helpful,” said labor and employment attorney Mark Neuberger in Miami. “Employee communication is critical. Stay in touch and up-to-date” with the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention information and “don’t panic” employees.

He and other experts recommend employers outline policies about teleworking, travel and sick leave; monitor recommendations from the CDC and local health officials; and stock up on needed office supplies and other products that might be affected by a global manufacturing slowdown.

The CDC has said the current risk in the U.S. from the virus is low, but it encourages employers to develop plans in case the virus becomes more widespread, potentially resulting in containment efforts that might include closing schools, limiting public transportation or canceling large gatherings.

Still, while emergency plans and workplace policies are important, employers are warned not to go too far.

“They can’t do it in a discriminatory fashion,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law professor at George Washington University. “The thing that is most worrisome is for people of Asian descent, whether they are singled out. That would be Exhibit A for discrimination.”

Federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and other statutes, limit the types of health information employers can seek about their employees ― and they prohibit discrimination based on disability or other factors, including national origin.

The types of questions matter.

Employers can’t, for example, ask questions that might indicate a person has an underlying health condition or disability, such as: “Do you have a compromised immune system?”

But, during a pandemic, they can ask whether a worker has flu-like symptoms, according to guidance developed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2009 following an outbreak of the H1N1 virus. And if so, they can send sick workers home.

Depending on how serious the outbreak becomes, employers could also measure workers’ temperatures, which under ordinary conditions would be considered a medical exam and thus barred.

In a pandemic, taking temperatures would be OK if the disease in question is more serious than seasonal flu and “becomes widespread in the community as assessed by state or local health authorities,” the EEOC said.

What About Travel?

Some employers, including Nestlé, are restricting business-related international travel. Others are limiting trips to affected areas. Some, including Volkswagen, are asking workers who return from areas where the virus is endemic to stay away from the office for 14 days. Both of these companies are headquartered near Washington, D.C., but have offices and facilities around the country.

No matter what, legal experts say, employers should not single out particular employees for travel restrictions, health tests, quarantines or any other policy.

“If there is some policy implemented with respect to overseas travel, it should apply to all people who engage in travel, not just those of a particular race, nationality or origin,” said Phyllis Pari, an attorney in Connecticut who represents employers.

And employers should consider continuing regular pay for workers who are required to stay at home for 14 days, rather than making them use sick time or vacation, Neuberger said.

That way, they won’t have “disgruntled employees forced to stay home who won’t have vacation or time off for the rest of the year,” he said.

Still, some employees may become unhappy as companies weigh other decisions.

Just this week, an estimated 3,000 sales employees of Workday, a California-based analytics company, learned they won’t be enjoying the Florida sunshine since the company canceled its annual sales meeting set for early March in Orlando.

The travel and convention industry is already taking a hit. On Thursday, it took another when Facebook said it would cancel its annual F8 software developer conference set for May in San Jose, California, that was expected to draw 5,000 people. That comes not long after Facebook canceled its global marketing summit set for San Francisco in March.

While firms say they are reacting out of an abundance of caution, they are also considering how fast the virus has spread ― much of it because of international travel ― after emerging in China late last year. Cases have been reported in more than 40 countries.

Travel and airline stocks were among the hardest hit this week as the overall stock market declined, largely over fears about the effect COVID-19 might have on the global economy.

Still, many conventions are moving forward, albeit with a public health message similar to that being pushed out by many employers: Don’t panic, the risk is low, and wash your hands!

As of Thursday, the giant HIMSS Global Health Conference & Exhibition is still planned for March in Orlando, where it may draw nearly 45,000 information technology professionals from around the world.

This year, though, it will have a special medical office on-site dedicated to addressing flu-like symptoms, and with the ability to isolate people who do show such symptoms — plus, extra hand sanitizer stations and direct access to Florida Department of Health Experts.

Oh, and organizers have declared the conference “a handshake-free meeting.”

 



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Your School Assignment For The Day: Spelling And Specs

DELANO, Calif. — Daisy Leon struggles to sit still and read the letters on the eye chart. Her responses tumble out in a quiet, confused garble.

“You know your letters?” asks optometrist Jolly Mamauag-Camat. “Umm, ya,” says Daisy, almost inaudibly.

The 6-year-old kindergartner had her eyes examined for the first time on a recent Thursday morning. Although she hadn’t complained about headaches or blurry vision, her grandmother noticed she’d been inching closer to watch television.

After Daisy’s failed attempts at reading the eye chart, Mamauag-Camat inspects the little girl’s eyes through a phoropter and writes her a prescription for glasses.

At least 20% of school-age children in the U.S. have vision problems. But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fewer than 15% of children get an eye exam before entering kindergarten. Because vision problems tend to worsen the longer they go undetected, many children suffer even though there are often simple, relatively inexpensive solutions such as prescription glasses.

Half of the states plus the District of Columbia require screenings or exams for preschoolers, according to the National Center for Children’s Vision & Eye Health. But California has no such requirement, said Xuejuan Jiang, an assistant professor of research ophthalmology at Keck School of Medicine of USC. California does require them for older children.

“The system in California is not as good as it can be,” Jiang said.

In much of California’s Central Valley, where roughly 1 in 5 people live in poverty, two school districts are working with two nonprofits, the Advanced Center for Eyecare and OneSight, to provide vision care to Kern County’s underserved and uninsured children.

Many of the neediest are the children of farmworkers.

“We are an agriculture-based community,” said Linda Hinojosa, coordinator of health services for the Delano Union School District. “Most of our families harvest table grapes 12 hours a day, with very limited time to take their children in for an eye exam.”

The program, funded by the nonprofits and the school districts, operates five school-based clinics in Bakersfield and Delano. Students receive comprehensive eye exams and glasses, along with free transportation. And breakfast.

Most of the children who visit the clinics have coverage through Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program for low-income people. There is no out-of-pocket cost for the eye exams and glasses for them, or for children who are uninsured, said Alexander Zahn, chief business development officer for the Advanced Center for Eyecare.

Almost half of the students examined need glasses.

“The need was very apparent” in the Central Valley, Zahn said. “Sixty dollars for an eye exam and $80 for glasses might be the difference between eating dinner a couple days a week.”

Daisy was among 12 students who were bused to the Delano Union School District Vision Center, adjacent to Pioneer School, an elementary school with about 1,000 students. Almost all the students at Pioneer are Hispanic and about three-quarters qualify for free lunches.

Students from throughout the Delano Union Elementary School District visit the clinic. Since it opened in 2018, the clinic has performed 961 eye exams and prescribed 517 pairs of glasses.

For Daisy, whose parents are farmworkers, the clinic has been a tremendous help.

“They prune out in the fields,” said Guadalupe Leon, Daisy’s grandmother. “They can’t afford to take days off.”

The Delano Union School District Vision Center is funded by multiple sources: OneSight, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing access to vision care in underserved communities around the world, donated the ophthalmic equipment and provided grant funding for the first year of operation. The Advanced Center for Eyecare provides staff and supplies. And the school district provides the facility, furnishings and transportation. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Twelve students from Nueva Vista Language Academy and Fremont Elementary School arrive by bus for their eye exams and follow-ups. Linda Hinojosa, a registered nurse for 20 years, says lack of transportation is a major barrier to vision care. “Parents a lot of times don’t have a car, or it can be a one-vehicle family,” she says. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Students are offered breakfast before their appointments with optometrist Jolly Mamauag-Camat. About three-quarters of students in the district are eligible for free/reduced-price meals. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Daisy Leon, a kindergartner at Nueva Vista Language Academy, takes a test to check for color blindness. Before beginning, the optical technician asks Daisy if she understands English. Because of the region’s large Spanish-speaking population, clinic staff members often act as interpreters. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Daisy looks into an auto refractor as part of her eye exam. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Daisy and Jonathon Castro watch a movie as they wait for their eyes to dilate. This is the first eye exam for both of them. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Daisy sits on her knees to see through a phoropter, a device to help determine eyeglass prescriptions. Mamauag-Camat says children often can’t tell if they have vision problems because they don’t know any differently. “They can fall through the cracks,” she says. “They don’t know the difference between what’s clear and not clear.” (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

About 45% of Kern County’s population is on Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal covers vision care, including an eye exam and glasses every two years, but in communities like Delano, access is a problem. “We live in an area with a big shortage of providers, particularly specialty care providers like optometrists and ophthalmologists,” says Alexander Zahn, of the Advanced Center for Eyecare. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Daisy picks out glasses right after her exam, a pink pair that she had been admiring all morning. “We need to go where students are,” says Hinojosa. “Vision is absolutely vital.” (Heidi de Marco/KHN)



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Watch: One Father’s Fight Against ‘Predatory’ Drug Price

Dr. Sudeep Taksali tells “CBS This Morning” about his efforts to get a cheaper version of a drug commonly known as a hormone blocker for his daughter, who has central precocious puberty. The report is the latest collaboration between CBS, NPR and Kaiser Health News on the “Bill of the Month” crowdsourced investigative series.

KHN Editor-in-Chief Elisabeth Rosenthal described how one active ingredient is sold by Endo Pharmaceuticals as two different drugs — the one for children has a price tag of $37,300, while one used in adults goes for $4,400.

Taksali said the discrepancy signals a type of “predation on parents who have that sense of vulnerability, who will do anything within their means to help their children.”



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Past As Prologue: Questioning Buttigieg’s Claim About Keeping Your Health Care

As the Democratic presidential campaign moves to the battleground of South Carolina this weekend, candidate Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is highlighting his health plan as he seeks to slow the momentum of the front-runner, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In a video ad airing across the state, Buttigieg argues that his health plan — called “Medicare for All Who Want It” — offers Americans their choice of insurance plans, in a way he says Sanders’ more sweeping “Medicare for All” plan does not.

The Sanders plan would eliminate private insurance and move everyone into a government-run program.

Under Buttigieg’s proposal, the ad says, “Everyone gets access to Medicare, if they choose.” Specifically, according to campaign documents, people or employers could buy into a government-provided health plan, which the campaign says would provide an “affordable, comprehensive alternative” to what is sold on the private market.

But, the voiceover adds, “if you like your private plan, you can keep it.”

 

This isn’t the first time a politician has made such a promise. Arguing in favor of the Affordable Care Act, then-President Barack Obama repeatedly said the health law would let people keep their private health plans, if they liked them.

That didn’t pan out: Millions of Americans’ plans were canceled, spawning months of controversy. In 2013, PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement the “Lie of the Year.”

With that context, we decided to look deeper at Buttigieg’s remark. We reached out to his campaign but never heard back.

An Uncertain Market

Experts we talked to said the former mayor’s remark is remarkably similar to Obama’s ― right down to the pitfalls it encounters.

Those policy analysts said Buttigieg is trying to differentiate his plan from Sanders’ sweeping proposal, arguing his offering is more moderate than Sanders’ and preserves choice. He suggests many Americans would be able to pick between buying private insurance or opting into the government plan.

But does that mean that if you like your plan, you can keep it? As the Obama White House learned, not necessarily.

“It’s like déjà vu all over again,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.

The problem is that private insurance availability isn’t up to the government. To be sure, state and federal regulators have the power to dictate, for example, the inclusion of certain benefits and to set basic consumer protections. But the government cannot specifically require insurance companies to offer plans, and any carrier has the option to stop providing coverage.

Already, market forces dictate what health insurance is available from year to year. For example, negotiations between an insurer and physicians could mean that an insurer drops doctors from its network. Changing profit margins could drive a private carrier to exit a certain market. An employer looking to trim expenses might decide to change health insurers, changing coverage offerings for employees.

Buttigieg’s health plan — which would more generously subsidize people buying private insurance than the ACA does and create a public health insurance option that individuals and employers could buy ― wouldn’t change any of those economic scenarios.

“When you have private plans offered and sold by private companies, those private companies are going to make business decisions that might affect your coverage,” Corlette said. “They can opt to get out of the business.”

That’s been especially clear in the ACA individual marketplace. In many counties, only one private insurer sells coverage on the marketplace. It’s impossible to predict, but a competing public option might change the financial incentives for those plans and push some of those carriers to abandon the exchange. If that happened, people using that plan would lose the insurance they have, regardless of how they feel about it.

Put more forcefully, “There’s no way the government can guarantee a private plan will continue, without mandating it will,” said Cynthia Cox, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

So, she added, suggesting that people who like their private plans will have the option to keep them under Buttigieg’s proposal is “probably not true.” (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

The Employer Question

This is especially the case when it comes to the nearly 160 million people who get their insurance from an employer.

Already, that group experiences volatility when it comes to their health insurance. In 2019, 53% of employers providing coverage considered changing the plan or the carrier they offered, according to a KFF survey. Of that group, almost a fifth — 18% ― ultimately did change insurance carriers.

That flux would likely increase under a plan like Buttigieg’s. Already, many employers (particularly smaller ones) indicate frustration with providing a health benefit that is increasingly complex and expensive. If a public option were cheaper, more might shift employees into that pool, dropping private insurance.

“Even if you don’t want the public option, your employer might decide that they do,” Cox said.

How big the change would be is difficult to gauge. It depends, for instance, on how generous the public option is, how much it costs employers and whether current private insurance trends continue.

Still, “any change you make to the health care environment would cause changes to reverberate throughout the system,” said Sherry Glied, a health economist and dean of New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service. “Any government action will cause change to happen more than they would otherwise.”

It’s worth noting that many people may not be affected. Under the ACA, for instance, 4 million lost their plans, or fewer than 2% of all people who had coverage.

Most people who move from private insurance to the public option would likely have better benefits, said Benjamin Sommers, a health economist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. But, some would be unhappy to lose the existing, private coverage that they know.

“The more accurate soundbite would be most people with private insurance would be able to keep it,” he added. “That would beg the question of who isn’t included there — and the answer is, we don’t know.”

And, in contrast with Sanders’ Medicare for All single-payer proposal, Buttigieg’s plan would preserve much of the current private insurance. But Buttigieg suggests that Medicare for All Who Want It — if administered well — could function as a “glide path” to a Medicare for All world, eventually bringing everyone into the public system.

“There’s good reason to think some of the private insurance competition won’t fare well against ‘Medicare for All Who Want It,’ ” Sommers said. “You might see some of the private plans dropping out. And that may be a sign the policy is working.”

Our Ruling

In a new campaign ad, Buttigieg claims that under his proposal to overhaul the health care system, “if you like your private plan, you can keep it.”

This may be true for some Americans who have private coverage, but it is not true for all. It ignores the inherent instability of the private insurance markets — in which plans are canceled or changed all the time, people often don’t get to pick which private plan is even available to them, and government intervention would likely exacerbate that volatility.

Introducing a public option, as Buttigieg intends to do, could create more incentives for employers to drop private coverage and switch to the public Medicare plan — and, in some cases, for private carriers to exit the individual marketplace. The fact that it would be less disruptive than Medicare for All doesn’t change this.

Buttigieg’s claim has some truth to it, but leaves out key facts and context. We rate it Mostly False.



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts: