Religious business owners and corporations have filed half the lawsuits over health reform mandate to cover contraception

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

Some religious business owners are filing suit against the government, saying the health-reform law violates the constitutional freedom of religion by mandating employee contraceptive and abortion-inducing drug coverage; the lawsuits are expected to land in the U.S. Supreme Court, and a case filed by Hobby Lobby is the first of this kind to be heard by a federal appeals court.

Challenges to the mandate that will require businesses with more than 50 employees to provide no-cost coverage of all contraceptives, sterilization procedures, plus education and counseling, are not just coming from Catholic entities with a religious, moral objection to contraception. About half of the cases have been filed by corporations, reports Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.

There are now 60 cases involving 190 individuals representing hospitals, universities, businesses, schools and people opposed to the mandate, says the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund maps the cases, as shown below; for the interactive version, click here.

Since the law mandates contraceptive coverage, groups such as Catholic bishops have accused the Obama administration of waging war on religious liberty, reports Barnes. In February, the administration announced an exemption for faith-based organizations from covering employees' contraception costs because the conceptions would be covered by a third party. Self-insured organizations like Catholic schools sued, arguing that the accommodation would not apply to them because there is no third-party insurer to cover contraception. But those cases have been dismissed in court because such organizations are given a one-year grace period to comply with the mandate, reports Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post.

Businesses don't qualify for faith-based exemption from mandates

Hobby Lobby's David and Barbara Green

Business do not meet the new exemption either, because they are not religious organizations. However, some businesses like Hobby Lobby, which was founded and is still owned by an evangelical Christian family that believes life begins at conception and already covers contraceptives through existing employee health coverage, are fighting the law's mandate to cover abortion-inducing drugs or devices, like morning-after and week-after pills.

"They ought to be able — just like a church, just like a charity — to have the right to opt out of a provision that infringes on their religious beliefs," said Kyle Duncan, who argued the case Thursday before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Green family, and a sister company, Christian booksellers Mardel Inc, reports The Associated Press.

Other suits have been filed by religious business owners of diverse enterprises, from a company that makes wooden cabinets to owners of Panera Bread restaurants, reports Barnes, but all the cases base their arguments on the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion and on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Hobby Lobby case also specifies that the mandate violates freedom of speech and the Administrative Procedure Act because it was imposed without prior notice or sufficient time for public comment.

In the early stages of litigation, lower courts have split on the issue. Some have rejected Hobby Lobby's request for an exemption to the mandate, and requests by other businesses for a temporary injunction, saying for-profit businesses aren't covered by the faith-based exemption. However, courts in St. Louis and the Seventh Circuit have granted temporary injunctions. (Read more)

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

Some religious business owners are filing suit against the government, saying the health-reform law violates the constitutional freedom of religion by mandating employee contraceptive and abortion-inducing drug coverage; the lawsuits are expected to land in the U.S. Supreme Court, and a case filed by Hobby Lobby is the first of this kind to be heard by a federal appeals court.

Challenges to the mandate that will require businesses with more than 50 employees to provide no-cost coverage of all contraceptives, sterilization procedures, plus education and counseling, are not just coming from Catholic entities with a religious, moral objection to contraception. About half of the cases have been filed by corporations, reports Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.

There are now 60 cases involving 190 individuals representing hospitals, universities, businesses, schools and people opposed to the mandate, says the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund maps the cases, as shown below; for the interactive version, click here.

Since the law mandates contraceptive coverage, groups such as Catholic bishops have accused the Obama administration of waging war on religious liberty, reports Barnes. In February, the administration announced an exemption for faith-based organizations from covering employees' contraception costs because the conceptions would be covered by a third party. Self-insured organizations like Catholic schools sued, arguing that the accommodation would not apply to them because there is no third-party insurer to cover contraception. But those cases have been dismissed in court because such organizations are given a one-year grace period to comply with the mandate, reports Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post.

Businesses don't qualify for faith-based exemption from mandates

Hobby Lobby's David and Barbara Green

Business do not meet the new exemption either, because they are not religious organizations. However, some businesses like Hobby Lobby, which was founded and is still owned by an evangelical Christian family that believes life begins at conception and already covers contraceptives through existing employee health coverage, are fighting the law's mandate to cover abortion-inducing drugs or devices, like morning-after and week-after pills.

"They ought to be able — just like a church, just like a charity — to have the right to opt out of a provision that infringes on their religious beliefs," said Kyle Duncan, who argued the case Thursday before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Green family, and a sister company, Christian booksellers Mardel Inc, reports The Associated Press.

Other suits have been filed by religious business owners of diverse enterprises, from a company that makes wooden cabinets to owners of Panera Bread restaurants, reports Barnes, but all the cases base their arguments on the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion and on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Hobby Lobby case also specifies that the mandate violates freedom of speech and the Administrative Procedure Act because it was imposed without prior notice or sufficient time for public comment.

In the early stages of litigation, lower courts have split on the issue. Some have rejected Hobby Lobby's request for an exemption to the mandate, and requests by other businesses for a temporary injunction, saying for-profit businesses aren't covered by the faith-based exemption. However, courts in St. Louis and the Seventh Circuit have granted temporary injunctions. (Read more)

Read More

Health insurers could exclude one in four Americans from coverage because they don't have bank accounts

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. graphic

A new study says if corrective action isn't taken, health-insurance companies could exclude 27 percent of qualifying Americans now eligible for premium-assistance tax credits under the health-reform law because they plan to require customers to pay premiums automatically through a bank account. More than 1 in 4 of these people do not have a bank account.

If insurance companies won't do business with them, that will undermine efforts to expand health coverage and equalize access to health care, denying coverage to the more than 8 million "unbanked" Americans, says the report from tax firm Jackson Hewitt.

Unbanked households are those that lack any kind of deposit account, checking or savings, at an insured depository institution, so requiring a checking account for coverage could also worsen the existing disparities in both health-care access and health status of minority groups. African Americans and Hispanics are over 40 percent more likely than whites to be "unbanked," says the report.

Most health plans accept a credit card for the first month’s premium payment and thereafter require monthly payment from a checking account. An estimated 30 percent of U.S. households are "unbanked" or underbanked, with the highest rates among non-Asian minorities and lower-income, younger and unemployed households; underbanked households hold a bank account but also rely on alternative financial services, and one in five households use such check-cashing stores and money lenders instead of a traditional bank, says the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

This all goes against the basic ideals behind the health care law's "comprehensive reforms that improve access to affordable health coverage for everyone and protect consumers from abusive insurance company practices. The law allows all Americans to make health insurance choices that work for them while guaranteeing access to care for our most vulnerable, and provides new ways to bring down costs and improve quality of care," says the White House website.

Law doesn't protect Americans from discrimination

Federal officials are wary taking action that may discourage insurance companies from participating in the exchanges, current and former state health officers who have pressed the U.S Department of Health and Human Services for a ruling told Varney.

“I think there is a dawning awareness that this is a large problem,” Brian Haile told Varney; Haile is senior vice president for health policy at Jackson Hewitt Tax Service and has called on federal official to set a uniform standard requiring all insurers to accept all forms of payment.

Neither the health law nor other laws require insurance companies to accept all forms of payment, says Sarah Varney of Kaiser Health News. Alternative forms of payment include credit cards or pre-paid debit cards that people without bank accounts often use, and although health insurance companies are evaluating these options, they are not required to do so, reports Varney.

“I’ve not seen any specific guidance that says you have to be able to accept these types of payments,” Ray Smithberger, Cigna’s general manager of individual and family plans, told Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post.

Insurance carriers take a risk by accepting credit cards and pre-paid debit cards because transaction fees can run as high as 4 percent and pre-paid cards are popular among low-wage workers, Haile told Varney. 

“If you accept re-loadable debit cards, are you in fact getting folks with lower health status?” Haile told Varney. “That’s a real risk when you’re in the insurance business. So you can’t be the only one picking up those risks.”

The Jackson Hewitt report calls for immediate action by federal policy makers to ensure insurers cannot discriminate against the 'unbanked' through their payment acceptance policies by creating a system-wide rule requiring all forms of payment must be accepted.

"Given the dilemma presented to insurance companies by the strong financial incentives to discourage non-bank payment mechanisms, insurers are unlikely to resolve this issue without federal action," says the report.

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. graphic

A new study says if corrective action isn't taken, health-insurance companies could exclude 27 percent of qualifying Americans now eligible for premium-assistance tax credits under the health-reform law because they plan to require customers to pay premiums automatically through a bank account. More than 1 in 4 of these people do not have a bank account.

If insurance companies won't do business with them, that will undermine efforts to expand health coverage and equalize access to health care, denying coverage to the more than 8 million "unbanked" Americans, says the report from tax firm Jackson Hewitt.

Unbanked households are those that lack any kind of deposit account, checking or savings, at an insured depository institution, so requiring a checking account for coverage could also worsen the existing disparities in both health-care access and health status of minority groups. African Americans and Hispanics are over 40 percent more likely than whites to be "unbanked," says the report.

Most health plans accept a credit card for the first month’s premium payment and thereafter require monthly payment from a checking account. An estimated 30 percent of U.S. households are "unbanked" or underbanked, with the highest rates among non-Asian minorities and lower-income, younger and unemployed households; underbanked households hold a bank account but also rely on alternative financial services, and one in five households use such check-cashing stores and money lenders instead of a traditional bank, says the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

This all goes against the basic ideals behind the health care law's "comprehensive reforms that improve access to affordable health coverage for everyone and protect consumers from abusive insurance company practices. The law allows all Americans to make health insurance choices that work for them while guaranteeing access to care for our most vulnerable, and provides new ways to bring down costs and improve quality of care," says the White House website.

Law doesn't protect Americans from discrimination

Federal officials are wary taking action that may discourage insurance companies from participating in the exchanges, current and former state health officers who have pressed the U.S Department of Health and Human Services for a ruling told Varney.

“I think there is a dawning awareness that this is a large problem,” Brian Haile told Varney; Haile is senior vice president for health policy at Jackson Hewitt Tax Service and has called on federal official to set a uniform standard requiring all insurers to accept all forms of payment.

Neither the health law nor other laws require insurance companies to accept all forms of payment, says Sarah Varney of Kaiser Health News. Alternative forms of payment include credit cards or pre-paid debit cards that people without bank accounts often use, and although health insurance companies are evaluating these options, they are not required to do so, reports Varney.

“I’ve not seen any specific guidance that says you have to be able to accept these types of payments,” Ray Smithberger, Cigna’s general manager of individual and family plans, told Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post.

Insurance carriers take a risk by accepting credit cards and pre-paid debit cards because transaction fees can run as high as 4 percent and pre-paid cards are popular among low-wage workers, Haile told Varney. 

“If you accept re-loadable debit cards, are you in fact getting folks with lower health status?” Haile told Varney. “That’s a real risk when you’re in the insurance business. So you can’t be the only one picking up those risks.”

The Jackson Hewitt report calls for immediate action by federal policy makers to ensure insurers cannot discriminate against the 'unbanked' through their payment acceptance policies by creating a system-wide rule requiring all forms of payment must be accepted.

"Given the dilemma presented to insurance companies by the strong financial incentives to discourage non-bank payment mechanisms, insurers are unlikely to resolve this issue without federal action," says the report.

Read More

Baucus sees a health-reform 'train wreck,' fearing insurance exchanges won't be ready

Max Baucus (J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Senator Max Baucus, who as Senate Finance Committee chair helped write the health-care reform law, has become the highest-ranking Democrat to publicly voice concerns about its implementation, saying he thinks it’s headed for a collision with itself.

“I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” the Montanan told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius during a budget hearing.

Matt Gouras of The Associated Press notes that polls show that Americans are confused by the complex law, which is designed to cover about 30 million uninsured people through a mix of government programs and tax credits. Baucus told Sibelius he’s “very concerned” that new health insurance exchanges will not open on time in every state and residents will not have enough information to make choices even if they do open on time, as Kentucky's seems likely to do.

"The administration’s public-information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade,” Baucus lectured. “You need to fix this.” Baucus’ office later told Gouras that the senator still thinks the Affordable Care Act is a good law, but questions its roll-out.

Sebelius said that the administration is on track to fully implement exchanges in January, and to be open for open enrollment on Oct. 1, 2013, reports Gouras. Kentucky is among the states that have chosen to build a fully state-based exchange. Others have chosen a state-federal partnership exchange, or defaulted into a federally facilitated exchange. The map below shows the lay of the land about that decision. Yellow states have defaulted to a federal exchange, light blue states are planning for a partnership and blue states have chosen a state-based exchange.

Map provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation

Max Baucus (J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Senator Max Baucus, who as Senate Finance Committee chair helped write the health-care reform law, has become the highest-ranking Democrat to publicly voice concerns about its implementation, saying he thinks it’s headed for a collision with itself.

“I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” the Montanan told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius during a budget hearing.

Matt Gouras of The Associated Press notes that polls show that Americans are confused by the complex law, which is designed to cover about 30 million uninsured people through a mix of government programs and tax credits. Baucus told Sibelius he’s “very concerned” that new health insurance exchanges will not open on time in every state and residents will not have enough information to make choices even if they do open on time, as Kentucky's seems likely to do.

"The administration’s public-information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade,” Baucus lectured. “You need to fix this.” Baucus’ office later told Gouras that the senator still thinks the Affordable Care Act is a good law, but questions its roll-out.

Sebelius said that the administration is on track to fully implement exchanges in January, and to be open for open enrollment on Oct. 1, 2013, reports Gouras. Kentucky is among the states that have chosen to build a fully state-based exchange. Others have chosen a state-federal partnership exchange, or defaulted into a federally facilitated exchange. The map below shows the lay of the land about that decision. Yellow states have defaulted to a federal exchange, light blue states are planning for a partnership and blue states have chosen a state-based exchange.

Map provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation

Read More

Confused or concerned about the impact of health reform on Kentucky businesses? There's a seminar for that.

To address possible confusion or concern of business people and the public about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," health-care reform experts will address its impact on small and large companies across Kentucky at half-day seminars in Lexington and Louisville on May 8 and 9.

The Kentucky Health Care Reform Seminar will include specific discussions about expected cost increases and tax implications for businesses once reform is implemented, including the role of the health insurance exchange and the changing ways that coverage premiums will be determined. The seminar will be presented by The Iasis Group Inc., The Lane Report and the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, says a chamber release.  

Guidance to employers will be provided on complying with the new rules surrounding insurance reforms and insight to whether Kentucky companies can truly afford it. The seminar is part of a statewide partnership that includes Commerce Lexington, Greater Louisville Inc., the Kentucky Society for Human Resource Management and the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce (Click here for more details or to advance register)

To address possible confusion or concern of business people and the public about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," health-care reform experts will address its impact on small and large companies across Kentucky at half-day seminars in Lexington and Louisville on May 8 and 9.

The Kentucky Health Care Reform Seminar will include specific discussions about expected cost increases and tax implications for businesses once reform is implemented, including the role of the health insurance exchange and the changing ways that coverage premiums will be determined. The seminar will be presented by The Iasis Group Inc., The Lane Report and the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, says a chamber release.  

Guidance to employers will be provided on complying with the new rules surrounding insurance reforms and insight to whether Kentucky companies can truly afford it. The seminar is part of a statewide partnership that includes Commerce Lexington, Greater Louisville Inc., the Kentucky Society for Human Resource Management and the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce (Click here for more details or to advance register)

Read More

Feds letting Arkansas privatize Medicaid expansion; idea could spread like wildfire, as in Florida, but cost questions remain

Arkansas has turned heads nationally with its preliminary plan to expand Medicaid using the private insurance market, showing that the Obama administration is willing to give states more flexibility than expected in expanding the program.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has agreed to a proposal by Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe to reject the Medicaid expansion but use federal money to buy private health insurance for the 200,000 people who would have been covered under ordinary expansion, reports Sandhya Somashekhar of The Washington Post.

States that have come down on either sides of the Medicaid-expansion issue may reconsider their decision in light of the Arkansas proposal, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law professor at George Washington University. "If Arkansas is allowed to do this, I expect it to spread like wildfire," Rosenbaum told the Post.

The first place could be Florida, where a state Senate committee rejected Republican Gov. Rick Scott's expansion plan and proposed a privatization plan like that in Arkansas. Last week, a House committee voted to reject any expansion of the program. Scott "made it clear he was not going to lobby the Legislature on Medicaid," preferring to emphasize other issues, The New York Times' Lizette Alvarez reports. For coverage from the Tampa Bay Times and The Miami Herald, click here.

Could the wildfire spread all the way up to Kentucky?

Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand Medicaid in Kentucky if the state can afford it, but many Republican lawmakers oppose the idea, saying it would not be fiscally responsible. On the national level, 26 states and the District of Columbia have expressed a desire to expand Medicaid, 17 have said they reject it and seven are undecided, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

A more flexibile arrangement could be a game changer because it makes expansion more appealing, especially for states where expanding Medicaid has been politically unpopular and polarizing. in Arkansas, which has a Democratic governor and a Republicna legislature, officials say that from an ideological standpoint, using private insurance appeals to lawmakers from both parties, reports Somashekhar. She reports that even Democratic-led states might prefer this arrangement because it gets rid of some bureaucratic hurdles.

However, there are questions about cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that private insurance plans cost $3,000 more per person than Medicaid, reports Somashekhar. On the other hand, Arkansas officials say the move could ultimately save money in administrative charges along with other cost-control measures.

Although the Arkansas proposal is not concrete, it provides proof that the Department for Health and Human Services encourages innovative, state-based approaches to promote expansion. Many states may develop a new route best suited to their specific needs, without having to leave federal money on the table. (Read more)

Arkansas has turned heads nationally with its preliminary plan to expand Medicaid using the private insurance market, showing that the Obama administration is willing to give states more flexibility than expected in expanding the program.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has agreed to a proposal by Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe to reject the Medicaid expansion but use federal money to buy private health insurance for the 200,000 people who would have been covered under ordinary expansion, reports Sandhya Somashekhar of The Washington Post.

States that have come down on either sides of the Medicaid-expansion issue may reconsider their decision in light of the Arkansas proposal, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law professor at George Washington University. "If Arkansas is allowed to do this, I expect it to spread like wildfire," Rosenbaum told the Post.

The first place could be Florida, where a state Senate committee rejected Republican Gov. Rick Scott's expansion plan and proposed a privatization plan like that in Arkansas. Last week, a House committee voted to reject any expansion of the program. Scott "made it clear he was not going to lobby the Legislature on Medicaid," preferring to emphasize other issues, The New York Times' Lizette Alvarez reports. For coverage from the Tampa Bay Times and The Miami Herald, click here.

Could the wildfire spread all the way up to Kentucky?

Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand Medicaid in Kentucky if the state can afford it, but many Republican lawmakers oppose the idea, saying it would not be fiscally responsible. On the national level, 26 states and the District of Columbia have expressed a desire to expand Medicaid, 17 have said they reject it and seven are undecided, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

A more flexibile arrangement could be a game changer because it makes expansion more appealing, especially for states where expanding Medicaid has been politically unpopular and polarizing. in Arkansas, which has a Democratic governor and a Republicna legislature, officials say that from an ideological standpoint, using private insurance appeals to lawmakers from both parties, reports Somashekhar. She reports that even Democratic-led states might prefer this arrangement because it gets rid of some bureaucratic hurdles.

However, there are questions about cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that private insurance plans cost $3,000 more per person than Medicaid, reports Somashekhar. On the other hand, Arkansas officials say the move could ultimately save money in administrative charges along with other cost-control measures.

Although the Arkansas proposal is not concrete, it provides proof that the Department for Health and Human Services encourages innovative, state-based approaches to promote expansion. Many states may develop a new route best suited to their specific needs, without having to leave federal money on the table. (Read more)

Read More

Beshear will expand Medicaid, Democrat and Republican say; D says governor believes the state can opt out if it's not affordable

State legislators in both parties say they expect Gov. Steve Beshear to expand Medicaid to cover several hundred thousand more Kentuckians who earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty rate.

Rep. Tom Burch, chairman of the House Health and Welfare Committee, told Ryan Alessi of cn|2’s "Pure Politics" that the governor told him exactly that last week. And Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, told Kentucky Health News that he expects Beshear to do the deed.

Burch told Alessi that Beshear has decided to move forward with the expansion because he believes the state would be able to opt out if state officials discover that Kentucky can’t afford it after 2017.

Beshear didn’t mention expansion in his State of the Commonwealth Address last week, and the governor’s office said the official decision hadn’t been made yet but didn’t dispute Burch’s statement, Alessi reports. Here is the salient part of his interview with Burch:



Buford said Beshear will be under much political pressure to expand Medicaid because it is President Obama's signature program and expansion will create jobs. However, Republican legislators generally  have opposed the expansion of Medicaid because the state can’t afford it. The federal government will cover the cost of covering the extra people from 2014 through 2016. Kentucky would have to kick in 5 percent of the costs starting in 2017 and 10 percent by 2020.  

The federal government covers roughly 70 percent of Kentucky’s $6 billion Medicaid program. It covers more than 800,000 Kentuckians and with the expansion, that number could grow to more than 1 million — or roughly a quarter of all Kentuckians, reports Alessi.

“I think it’s critical that we take a look at those to see how we achieve that. I’m not sure that this would be the way that would be best-suited to Kentucky and be fiscally responsible for the state of Kentucky,” Sen. Julie Denton, R-Louisville and chairman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, told Alessi in December (at 4:10 of the interview below). “Frankly, I don’t think we can afford to do it,” she said.

State legislators in both parties say they expect Gov. Steve Beshear to expand Medicaid to cover several hundred thousand more Kentuckians who earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty rate.

Rep. Tom Burch, chairman of the House Health and Welfare Committee, told Ryan Alessi of cn|2’s "Pure Politics" that the governor told him exactly that last week. And Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, told Kentucky Health News that he expects Beshear to do the deed.

Burch told Alessi that Beshear has decided to move forward with the expansion because he believes the state would be able to opt out if state officials discover that Kentucky can’t afford it after 2017.

Beshear didn’t mention expansion in his State of the Commonwealth Address last week, and the governor’s office said the official decision hadn’t been made yet but didn’t dispute Burch’s statement, Alessi reports. Here is the salient part of his interview with Burch:



Buford said Beshear will be under much political pressure to expand Medicaid because it is President Obama's signature program and expansion will create jobs. However, Republican legislators generally  have opposed the expansion of Medicaid because the state can’t afford it. The federal government will cover the cost of covering the extra people from 2014 through 2016. Kentucky would have to kick in 5 percent of the costs starting in 2017 and 10 percent by 2020.  

The federal government covers roughly 70 percent of Kentucky’s $6 billion Medicaid program. It covers more than 800,000 Kentuckians and with the expansion, that number could grow to more than 1 million — or roughly a quarter of all Kentuckians, reports Alessi.

“I think it’s critical that we take a look at those to see how we achieve that. I’m not sure that this would be the way that would be best-suited to Kentucky and be fiscally responsible for the state of Kentucky,” Sen. Julie Denton, R-Louisville and chairman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, told Alessi in December (at 4:10 of the interview below). “Frankly, I don’t think we can afford to do it,” she said.

Read More

Kasich of Ohio is fifth Republican governor to accept Medicaid expansion; he and others cite need to protect rural hospitals, poor

Several Republican governors have decided to expand Medicaid under federal health-care reform, saying their conservative principles were outweighed by a need to protect their state's rural hospitals and low-income people. Yesterday, the governor of one of the biggest states got on the bandwagon.

John Kasich of Ohio joined Jan Brewer of Arizona, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota in saying they will take heavy federal subsidies to expand the program to households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold.

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky has said he wants to expand Medicaid if Kentucky can afford it, and he expects to get cost estimates around the end of March.

While Kasich is not an "Obamacare" supporter, he said expanding Medicaid “makes great sense for Ohio” because it would save $235 million over the next two years and free about $100 million in local funds for mental-health and addiction services, reports The Columbus Dispatch.

Kasich said the decision could extend health coverage to as many as 578,000 uninsured Ohio residents, and could keep everyone else’s health insurance premiums down because there won’t be so many uninsured people going to emergency rooms for their medical care, reports David Nather of Politico.

Kasich emphasized that he would like to see the 2010 law repealed, but the federal money it would pump into the state — about $13 billion over the next seven years — was too much to pass up, reports Stateline. The federal government will pay the full cost of expansion through 2016; then  states will have to pitch in, rising to a limit of 10 percent by 2020.

Brewer likewise said it doesn't make sense for Arizona to pass up federal dollars, reports Howard Fischer of the Arizona Daily Sun. "We will protect rural and safety-net hospitals from being pushed to the brink by growing their cost in caring for the uninsured," Brewer said. She also said the expansion will create enormous economic benefit, inject $2 billion into the Arizona economy, save and create thousands of jobs and provide health care to hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals, reports Fischer.

Brewer said going along with expansion will save Arizona money because the costs of providing care to the uninsured are not simply absorbed by hospitals but passed along through increased insurance premiums. Supporters of the expansion hope the five Republicans' decisions will prompt more GOP governors to follow suit. Twenty governors from both political parties are still undecided. (Read more)

Several Republican governors have decided to expand Medicaid under federal health-care reform, saying their conservative principles were outweighed by a need to protect their state's rural hospitals and low-income people. Yesterday, the governor of one of the biggest states got on the bandwagon.

John Kasich of Ohio joined Jan Brewer of Arizona, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota in saying they will take heavy federal subsidies to expand the program to households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold.

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky has said he wants to expand Medicaid if Kentucky can afford it, and he expects to get cost estimates around the end of March.

While Kasich is not an "Obamacare" supporter, he said expanding Medicaid “makes great sense for Ohio” because it would save $235 million over the next two years and free about $100 million in local funds for mental-health and addiction services, reports The Columbus Dispatch.

Kasich said the decision could extend health coverage to as many as 578,000 uninsured Ohio residents, and could keep everyone else’s health insurance premiums down because there won’t be so many uninsured people going to emergency rooms for their medical care, reports David Nather of Politico.

Kasich emphasized that he would like to see the 2010 law repealed, but the federal money it would pump into the state — about $13 billion over the next seven years — was too much to pass up, reports Stateline. The federal government will pay the full cost of expansion through 2016; then  states will have to pitch in, rising to a limit of 10 percent by 2020.

Brewer likewise said it doesn't make sense for Arizona to pass up federal dollars, reports Howard Fischer of the Arizona Daily Sun. "We will protect rural and safety-net hospitals from being pushed to the brink by growing their cost in caring for the uninsured," Brewer said. She also said the expansion will create enormous economic benefit, inject $2 billion into the Arizona economy, save and create thousands of jobs and provide health care to hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals, reports Fischer.

Brewer said going along with expansion will save Arizona money because the costs of providing care to the uninsured are not simply absorbed by hospitals but passed along through increased insurance premiums. Supporters of the expansion hope the five Republicans' decisions will prompt more GOP governors to follow suit. Twenty governors from both political parties are still undecided. (Read more)

Read More

Health reform will let insurers charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premiums, which is likely to have a big impact in Kentucky

"Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance" because the health-care reform law will let health-insurance companies charge smokers as much as 50 percent more starting next year on individual policies, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation," The Associated Press reports.

The provision is likely to have a major impact in Kentucky, where 29 percent of adults are smokers, a figure exceeded by no other state, and where 25 to 30 percent of people under 65 are estimated to have no health insurance.

"For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year" AP reports. "A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums. Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration."

A state health insurance exchange, now being created under the law, will be a place to buy insurance with tax credits depending on income. Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand the state Medicaid program to cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, but many Republicans in the legislature are opposed to that because the state would ultimately have to pay 10 percent of the expansion's cost.

The provisions to discourage smoking would allow employees covered by employer plans to avoid penalties by joining smoking-cessation programs,"but experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually," AP reports.

There is concern about the provision's effect on older smokers who "could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge. . . . Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options," AP reports, citing Karen Pollitz, a health-insurance expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation and former deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pollitz notes that the reform law lets insurers charge older customers up to three times as much as their youngest customers; charge the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones; and does not allow smokers to use tax credits to offset the cost of the penalty.

And there's a good argument to charge the full penalty, insurance consultant Robert Laszewski told AP: "If you don’t charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers,” said Laszewski. “They are going to have to play defense." (Read more)

"Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance" because the health-care reform law will let health-insurance companies charge smokers as much as 50 percent more starting next year on individual policies, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation," The Associated Press reports.

The provision is likely to have a major impact in Kentucky, where 29 percent of adults are smokers, a figure exceeded by no other state, and where 25 to 30 percent of people under 65 are estimated to have no health insurance.

"For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year" AP reports. "A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums. Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration."

A state health insurance exchange, now being created under the law, will be a place to buy insurance with tax credits depending on income. Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand the state Medicaid program to cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, but many Republicans in the legislature are opposed to that because the state would ultimately have to pay 10 percent of the expansion's cost.

The provisions to discourage smoking would allow employees covered by employer plans to avoid penalties by joining smoking-cessation programs,"but experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually," AP reports.

There is concern about the provision's effect on older smokers who "could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge. . . . Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options," AP reports, citing Karen Pollitz, a health-insurance expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation and former deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pollitz notes that the reform law lets insurers charge older customers up to three times as much as their youngest customers; charge the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones; and does not allow smokers to use tax credits to offset the cost of the penalty.

And there's a good argument to charge the full penalty, insurance consultant Robert Laszewski told AP: "If you don’t charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers,” said Laszewski. “They are going to have to play defense." (Read more)

Read More

Health departments prepare for challenges posed by health-care reform law

No one really has a clue what changes from the health-care reform law will mean to Kentuckians and public health departments are preparing for the uncertainty, reports Kristy Cox of Business Lexington.

"The Affordable Care Act will have an impact on health departments.  It is going to put a whole lot more people out there on the street on health insurance" of one kind or another, Dr. Rice Leach, head of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department, told Cox.

"I think how health departments are impacted is going to look a little different depending on what part of the state they're in," Rice said. "The United States has passed a law that creates an entitlement for 30 or 40 million people, and here in Lexington, for 10,000 or 20,000 more people to have health insurance. Now, who is going to take care of them?"

If the private sector can't handle the increased patient load, Leach said, the stress goes onto the health departments, meaning they may be expected to provide a broad "continuum" of care for acute medical needs, including doctors and laboratory services. Leach said he hopes other systems will step up to provide care so health departments can continue to focus on preventative services.

Many factors determine what health departments can and can't do as well as their ability to generate dollars. Leach called  the services mandates by state and federal governments as "mission critical activities," which include preventive health, communicable disease control, public health education, emergency response, sanitary code and restaurant inspection and public health policy, writes Cox. 

Despite the challenging economic environment created by budget cuts and managed-care non-payment issues, Kentucky health departments are trying to stay focused on their big-picture mission.  Some departments are writing grants and others, like the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, has sent nurses into school systems in attempt to increase revenue through expanded clinical services, Cox reports.

No one really has a clue what changes from the health-care reform law will mean to Kentuckians and public health departments are preparing for the uncertainty, reports Kristy Cox of Business Lexington.

"The Affordable Care Act will have an impact on health departments.  It is going to put a whole lot more people out there on the street on health insurance" of one kind or another, Dr. Rice Leach, head of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department, told Cox.

"I think how health departments are impacted is going to look a little different depending on what part of the state they're in," Rice said. "The United States has passed a law that creates an entitlement for 30 or 40 million people, and here in Lexington, for 10,000 or 20,000 more people to have health insurance. Now, who is going to take care of them?"

If the private sector can't handle the increased patient load, Leach said, the stress goes onto the health departments, meaning they may be expected to provide a broad "continuum" of care for acute medical needs, including doctors and laboratory services. Leach said he hopes other systems will step up to provide care so health departments can continue to focus on preventative services.

Many factors determine what health departments can and can't do as well as their ability to generate dollars. Leach called  the services mandates by state and federal governments as "mission critical activities," which include preventive health, communicable disease control, public health education, emergency response, sanitary code and restaurant inspection and public health policy, writes Cox. 

Despite the challenging economic environment created by budget cuts and managed-care non-payment issues, Kentucky health departments are trying to stay focused on their big-picture mission.  Some departments are writing grants and others, like the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, has sent nurses into school systems in attempt to increase revenue through expanded clinical services, Cox reports.

Read More

Poll shows registered voters in Ky. favor expanding Medicaid

By Molly Burchett and Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

A statewide poll last month found that most registered voters in Kentucky, when presented with specific facts and options, generally favored expansion of Medicaid under federal health-care reform. Similar results were found in six other states surveyed by a bipartisan pair of pollsters working for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

"Respondents in the seven states polled were informed that federal funds are available to pay 100 percent of the costs to cover more uninsured people through Medicaid beginning in 2014, with the federal share gradually decreasing to 90 percent," the network said in a news release. "Respondents in each state were two to three times more likely to support accepting federal dollars to cover more people than they were to prefer turning down federal funds and leaving vulnerable populations uninsured." The poll asked:

Next I’d like to ask you about an issue being talked about by the governor and the state legislature. Under the new federal health care law, [number of] people in [state] who are uninsured right now could get health care coverage through Medicaid starting in 2014. The governor and state elected officials can choose to accept federal dollars that have been allocated to cover these people in [state], or to turn the money down and not cover these people. The federal dollars cover 100% of the costs in the first few years, and 90% of the costs after that.

The release said the result in Kentucky was 63 percent for expansion and 23 percent opposed. The results were not quite as strong, 60-30, when voters were presented with arguments from both sides of the debate:

Side A says we can cover more people in [state] and save taxpayer dollars that are currently spent on treating uninsured people in emergency rooms. Covering more people gives hard-working families the security of knowing they can get preventive care and see a doctor when they need to. The alternative is people showing up in the emergency room when they are sicker. By accepting the money, we could cover more people and save taxpayer dollars.

Side B says Kentucky will eventually have to pay 10% of the costs of covering these people, and even more if the federal government fails to follow through on its promises. We cannot afford to spend even more on health care coverage, which is already a big part of the state budget. We have too many other priorities in the state that need attention, like education and roads. By turning down the money, we could avoid future increases in state health care spending.

Which side do you agree with more?

The results in other states were Florida, 62-28; Iowa, 55-34; Michigan, 62-29; New Jersey, 65-29; New Mexico, 61-29; and Texas, 55-35. The Kentucky poll found that 49 percent of registered voters in Kentucky have close friends or family members who are uninsured, and 43 percent of voters who are not currently receiving coverage through Medicaid say they or someone close to them has been covered by it.

The poll did not mention the key standard for expansion, that a state must cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Kentucky now covers people with incomes below approximately 70 percent of poverty, and the federal government pays a little more than 70 percent of the cost. It would pay all the cost of expansion in 2014-16, then the state would have to start paying an increasing share, reaching 10 percent by 2020. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand Medicaid if the state can afford it.

The telephone poll surveyed 812 registered voters, giving it an error margin of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points. It was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic firm, and GS Strategy Group, a Republican firm, between Dec. 13 and 22. For more details, click here.

By Molly Burchett and Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

A statewide poll last month found that most registered voters in Kentucky, when presented with specific facts and options, generally favored expansion of Medicaid under federal health-care reform. Similar results were found in six other states surveyed by a bipartisan pair of pollsters working for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

"Respondents in the seven states polled were informed that federal funds are available to pay 100 percent of the costs to cover more uninsured people through Medicaid beginning in 2014, with the federal share gradually decreasing to 90 percent," the network said in a news release. "Respondents in each state were two to three times more likely to support accepting federal dollars to cover more people than they were to prefer turning down federal funds and leaving vulnerable populations uninsured." The poll asked:

Next I’d like to ask you about an issue being talked about by the governor and the state legislature. Under the new federal health care law, [number of] people in [state] who are uninsured right now could get health care coverage through Medicaid starting in 2014. The governor and state elected officials can choose to accept federal dollars that have been allocated to cover these people in [state], or to turn the money down and not cover these people. The federal dollars cover 100% of the costs in the first few years, and 90% of the costs after that.

The release said the result in Kentucky was 63 percent for expansion and 23 percent opposed. The results were not quite as strong, 60-30, when voters were presented with arguments from both sides of the debate:

Side A says we can cover more people in [state] and save taxpayer dollars that are currently spent on treating uninsured people in emergency rooms. Covering more people gives hard-working families the security of knowing they can get preventive care and see a doctor when they need to. The alternative is people showing up in the emergency room when they are sicker. By accepting the money, we could cover more people and save taxpayer dollars.

Side B says Kentucky will eventually have to pay 10% of the costs of covering these people, and even more if the federal government fails to follow through on its promises. We cannot afford to spend even more on health care coverage, which is already a big part of the state budget. We have too many other priorities in the state that need attention, like education and roads. By turning down the money, we could avoid future increases in state health care spending.

Which side do you agree with more?

The results in other states were Florida, 62-28; Iowa, 55-34; Michigan, 62-29; New Jersey, 65-29; New Mexico, 61-29; and Texas, 55-35. The Kentucky poll found that 49 percent of registered voters in Kentucky have close friends or family members who are uninsured, and 43 percent of voters who are not currently receiving coverage through Medicaid say they or someone close to them has been covered by it.

The poll did not mention the key standard for expansion, that a state must cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Kentucky now covers people with incomes below approximately 70 percent of poverty, and the federal government pays a little more than 70 percent of the cost. It would pay all the cost of expansion in 2014-16, then the state would have to start paying an increasing share, reaching 10 percent by 2020. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand Medicaid if the state can afford it.

The telephone poll surveyed 812 registered voters, giving it an error margin of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points. It was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic firm, and GS Strategy Group, a Republican firm, between Dec. 13 and 22. For more details, click here.

Read More

Lexington lawyer writes booklet helping Kentucky businesses to break down health-care reform law

Margaret Levi, a lawyer with the Lexington firm of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, has authored a new publication, The Impact of Health Care Reform on Kentucky Employers. The 68-page booklet, published by the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, is a readable summary of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, writes Greg Kocher of the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The law that started taking effect in March 2010 has had more more interpretations and critics than it has pages -- that's 2,555, if you don't count the legal citation references that require reading included within it. "There's a lot of criticism of it from people who haven't read it, and I think you have to know it before you can criticize it," said Levi, a Danville native and resident, said of the law. "I'm not taking a political position one way or another. I am neutral and I tried very hard to remain neutral."

The most common misconception about the law "is that all health care is going to be free and people can get all the care they want," Levi told Kocher. 'So there are some unrealistic expectations on behalf of consumers."

Levi also noted some confusion about how different-sized businesses qualify for different exemptions under different provisions of the law.  She said that some employers are weighing the "pay or play" mandate that takes effect in 2014. Under that provision, writes Kocher, "employers with 50 or more employees must provide 'minimum essential' health plan coverage to their eligible employees or pay a penalty if an eligible employee obtains coverage through a state-sponsored health insurance exchange and qualifies for benefits subsidized by the government. An employer who offers no health coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $2,000 a year per employee after the first 30 employees. "I think some employers are doing the math as to whether they pay the penalty or provide insurance for their employees," Levis said. "I saw a report that said 88 percent of employers are still going to provide the coverage."

Jim Ford, vice president of business education for the Kentucky Chamber, told Kocher that the booklet "basically says here are the rules, here's what it means, here's what implementation means. We're leaving politics at the door. Here's what you need to know." (Read more) For information on buying the booklet, go here.

Margaret Levi, a lawyer with the Lexington firm of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, has authored a new publication, The Impact of Health Care Reform on Kentucky Employers. The 68-page booklet, published by the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, is a readable summary of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, writes Greg Kocher of the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The law that started taking effect in March 2010 has had more more interpretations and critics than it has pages -- that's 2,555, if you don't count the legal citation references that require reading included within it. "There's a lot of criticism of it from people who haven't read it, and I think you have to know it before you can criticize it," said Levi, a Danville native and resident, said of the law. "I'm not taking a political position one way or another. I am neutral and I tried very hard to remain neutral."

The most common misconception about the law "is that all health care is going to be free and people can get all the care they want," Levi told Kocher. 'So there are some unrealistic expectations on behalf of consumers."

Levi also noted some confusion about how different-sized businesses qualify for different exemptions under different provisions of the law.  She said that some employers are weighing the "pay or play" mandate that takes effect in 2014. Under that provision, writes Kocher, "employers with 50 or more employees must provide 'minimum essential' health plan coverage to their eligible employees or pay a penalty if an eligible employee obtains coverage through a state-sponsored health insurance exchange and qualifies for benefits subsidized by the government. An employer who offers no health coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $2,000 a year per employee after the first 30 employees. "I think some employers are doing the math as to whether they pay the penalty or provide insurance for their employees," Levis said. "I saw a report that said 88 percent of employers are still going to provide the coverage."

Jim Ford, vice president of business education for the Kentucky Chamber, told Kocher that the booklet "basically says here are the rules, here's what it means, here's what implementation means. We're leaving politics at the door. Here's what you need to know." (Read more) For information on buying the booklet, go here.

Read More

Expert: Health care landscape already changed, despite what Supreme Court decision is this week

Whether or not the federal health-care reform law is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, initiatives are already in place that will change the way health care is delivered, an expert said at a Lexington conference Tuesday. Gregg Nunziata, senior director at research and consulting firm The Advisory Board in Washington, D.C., "said the burgeoning number of baby boomers entering retirement, the ever-accelerating advances in technology and the increasing public health crisis that finds more and more Americans with chronic illness such as diabetes, are fundamentally changing how health care works in America," reports Mary Meehan for the Lexington Herald-Leader. As people age, they are "demanding a different kind of care, and they will be living long into their golden years," he said. When they become seniors, who already tend to cast their vote, they will become a powerful voting bloc.

Health officials are looking at ways to cut down on costs, which is necessary because "the government is the major funding source, and the major funding source is broke," Nunziata said. To cut costs, the government and insurers are looking at new ways to pay for health care. One example is the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare scoring hospitals based on their performance and paying them accordingly. "A low score could reduce payments by only 1 percent or 2 percent," Meehan reports, but that can translate to a multi-million dollar loss. "Every hospital is being judged and Washington is keeping score," he said.
Bundling payments is another method being tried, in which one flat fee covers all of the care that is provided in a procedure. "The idea would be to force more efficient and cost-effective care by encouraging cooperation," Meehan reports. (Read more)

Whether or not the federal health-care reform law is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, initiatives are already in place that will change the way health care is delivered, an expert said at a Lexington conference Tuesday. Gregg Nunziata, senior director at research and consulting firm The Advisory Board in Washington, D.C., "said the burgeoning number of baby boomers entering retirement, the ever-accelerating advances in technology and the increasing public health crisis that finds more and more Americans with chronic illness such as diabetes, are fundamentally changing how health care works in America," reports Mary Meehan for the Lexington Herald-Leader. As people age, they are "demanding a different kind of care, and they will be living long into their golden years," he said. When they become seniors, who already tend to cast their vote, they will become a powerful voting bloc.

Health officials are looking at ways to cut down on costs, which is necessary because "the government is the major funding source, and the major funding source is broke," Nunziata said. To cut costs, the government and insurers are looking at new ways to pay for health care. One example is the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare scoring hospitals based on their performance and paying them accordingly. "A low score could reduce payments by only 1 percent or 2 percent," Meehan reports, but that can translate to a multi-million dollar loss. "Every hospital is being judged and Washington is keeping score," he said.
Bundling payments is another method being tried, in which one flat fee covers all of the care that is provided in a procedure. "The idea would be to force more efficient and cost-effective care by encouraging cooperation," Meehan reports. (Read more)

Read More