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

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

If Republican governors are agreeing to expand Medicaid after lobbying by hospitals, can Beshear be far behind?

By Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

Florida Gov. Rick Scott's surprising announcement that he would use federal health-care reform money to expand the Medicaid program to households earning up to 138 percent of the poverty level "means the dominoes are falling," says Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer group that lobbied for the law. And another domino seems likely to be Democratic Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, without involvement by the state legislature.

Beshear has said he will expand Medicaid if Kentucky can afford it, and has mentioned that the state can reserve the right to pull out of the deal in 2017, when it must start paying a small but increasing share of the cost, reaching 10 percent in 2020. Scott used the same qualification.

Pollack told The New York Times that the message sent by seven Republican governors' acceptance of the deal is  “Even though I may not have supported and even strongly opposed the Affordable Care Act, it would be harmful to the citizens of my state if I didn’t opt into taking these very substantial federal dollars to help people who truly need it.” The GOP governors (of states outlined in Times map below) have said they will expand the program partly to protect rural hospitals and the poor.

"The change of heart for some Republican governors has come after vigorous lobbying by health industry players, particularly hospitals," the Times notes. "Hospital associations around the country signed off on Medicaid cuts under the health care law on the assumption that their losses would be more than offset by new paying customers, including many insured by Medicaid. . . . Every few days, state hospital associations and advocates for poor people issue reports asserting that the economic benefits of expanding Medicaid would outweigh the costs." (Read more)

Kentucky Hospital Association President Michael Rust said the trade group is for "universal coverage" by whatever means but is not lobbying Beshear for Medicaid expansion. "We assume he is" going to expand it, Rust said in an interview today. He said the association has not taken a position on bills that would require legislative approval of expansion and the health-insurance exchange being set up under the reform law. The legislation, Senate Bill 39 and SB40, passed the Republican-controlled Senate on party-line votes today, and are expected to die in the Democratic-majority House.

Senate Majority Floor Leader Damon Thayer said the bills were aimed at reining in "big daddy government." Here's a video from cn|2:

Kentucky Health News is an independent news service of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, with support from the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky.

By Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

Florida Gov. Rick Scott's surprising announcement that he would use federal health-care reform money to expand the Medicaid program to households earning up to 138 percent of the poverty level "means the dominoes are falling," says Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer group that lobbied for the law. And another domino seems likely to be Democratic Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, without involvement by the state legislature.

Beshear has said he will expand Medicaid if Kentucky can afford it, and has mentioned that the state can reserve the right to pull out of the deal in 2017, when it must start paying a small but increasing share of the cost, reaching 10 percent in 2020. Scott used the same qualification.

Pollack told The New York Times that the message sent by seven Republican governors' acceptance of the deal is  “Even though I may not have supported and even strongly opposed the Affordable Care Act, it would be harmful to the citizens of my state if I didn’t opt into taking these very substantial federal dollars to help people who truly need it.” The GOP governors (of states outlined in Times map below) have said they will expand the program partly to protect rural hospitals and the poor.

"The change of heart for some Republican governors has come after vigorous lobbying by health industry players, particularly hospitals," the Times notes. "Hospital associations around the country signed off on Medicaid cuts under the health care law on the assumption that their losses would be more than offset by new paying customers, including many insured by Medicaid. . . . Every few days, state hospital associations and advocates for poor people issue reports asserting that the economic benefits of expanding Medicaid would outweigh the costs." (Read more)

Kentucky Hospital Association President Michael Rust said the trade group is for "universal coverage" by whatever means but is not lobbying Beshear for Medicaid expansion. "We assume he is" going to expand it, Rust said in an interview today. He said the association has not taken a position on bills that would require legislative approval of expansion and the health-insurance exchange being set up under the reform law. The legislation, Senate Bill 39 and SB40, passed the Republican-controlled Senate on party-line votes today, and are expected to die in the Democratic-majority House.

Senate Majority Floor Leader Damon Thayer said the bills were aimed at reining in "big daddy government." Here's a video from cn|2:

Kentucky Health News is an independent news service of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, with support from the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky.

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

Oregon may show the way for Kentucky in drug treatment

In facing up to its need for more drug-treatment facilities, Kentucky could learn some lessons from Oregon, Courier-Journal reporter Laura Ungar writes in the third and last part of her package of stories about drug treatment, or lack of it, in our state: "Oregon, like Kentucky, is a largely rural state with about 4 million people — and a substantial prescription-drug abuse problem. But Oregon has acted more quickly and aggressively to tackle treatment." She cites examples:

• Oregon is spending about $51 million annually on substance abuse treatment, $11 million more than six years ago. "Kentucky’s Department of Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities spends $29 million a year , and hasn’t increased that amount in more than a decade."

• Medicaid, the federally subsidized health-insurance program for the poor and disabled, covers substance abuse treatment in Oregon, "while Kentucky, with a few exceptions, does not."
• Oregon admits more than twice as many addicts for treatment, and "Oregonians are much more likely to receive intensive treatment: "10 percent of treatment admissions were to long-term, residential facilities, compared with 1.1 percent in Kentucky."
• Kentucky had a much higher rate of deaths from drug overdoses in 2008, the most recent year available — 17.9 per 100,000 compared with 11.7. "Health experts say effective treatment leads to fewer overdoses." (Read more)

In facing up to its need for more drug-treatment facilities, Kentucky could learn some lessons from Oregon, Courier-Journal reporter Laura Ungar writes in the third and last part of her package of stories about drug treatment, or lack of it, in our state: "Oregon, like Kentucky, is a largely rural state with about 4 million people — and a substantial prescription-drug abuse problem. But Oregon has acted more quickly and aggressively to tackle treatment." She cites examples:

• Oregon is spending about $51 million annually on substance abuse treatment, $11 million more than six years ago. "Kentucky’s Department of Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities spends $29 million a year , and hasn’t increased that amount in more than a decade."

• Medicaid, the federally subsidized health-insurance program for the poor and disabled, covers substance abuse treatment in Oregon, "while Kentucky, with a few exceptions, does not."
• Oregon admits more than twice as many addicts for treatment, and "Oregonians are much more likely to receive intensive treatment: "10 percent of treatment admissions were to long-term, residential facilities, compared with 1.1 percent in Kentucky."
• Kentucky had a much higher rate of deaths from drug overdoses in 2008, the most recent year available — 17.9 per 100,000 compared with 11.7. "Health experts say effective treatment leads to fewer overdoses." (Read more)

Read More

Kentucky's pill-mill problem and law to fight it get national airing, with issues of patient privacy versus public health debated

Kentucky's "pill problem" went more public Thursday when David Hopkins, head of the state's prescription drug monitoring program, told the National Conference of State Legislatures the true extent of our prescription pain pill addiction. Maggie Clark of Stateline reports that lawmakers "shook their heads in disbelief" when Hopkins said the state's doctors issued 60 million prescriptions for the 4.4 million Kentuckians in August of this year alone. The stark admission was a way to start talking about where patient privacy ends and public health concerns begin, Clark writes.

Kentucky is among 42 states with operational prescription-monitoring laws but few others require physicians to use the database to chronicle each patient and their drug use before prescribing as Kentucky does. And while the commonwealth allows its law-enforcement officers access to the database, the database is not controlled by the attorney general's office but, as a nod to patient privacy, by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. In Vermont, legislators fought that battle earlier this year, with police there needing a warrant to access it. When Kentucky's law enforcement officers were surveyed about the law in 2010, 73 percent said they found the tool "excellent" for obtaining evidence.

At the conference, a report citing a Centers for Disease Control review explained that data collected through 2005 in a limited number of studies shows that having a prescription drug monitoring program in place had no clear impact on overdose mortality, Clark reports.

Kentucky's "pill problem" went more public Thursday when David Hopkins, head of the state's prescription drug monitoring program, told the National Conference of State Legislatures the true extent of our prescription pain pill addiction. Maggie Clark of Stateline reports that lawmakers "shook their heads in disbelief" when Hopkins said the state's doctors issued 60 million prescriptions for the 4.4 million Kentuckians in August of this year alone. The stark admission was a way to start talking about where patient privacy ends and public health concerns begin, Clark writes.

Kentucky is among 42 states with operational prescription-monitoring laws but few others require physicians to use the database to chronicle each patient and their drug use before prescribing as Kentucky does. And while the commonwealth allows its law-enforcement officers access to the database, the database is not controlled by the attorney general's office but, as a nod to patient privacy, by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. In Vermont, legislators fought that battle earlier this year, with police there needing a warrant to access it. When Kentucky's law enforcement officers were surveyed about the law in 2010, 73 percent said they found the tool "excellent" for obtaining evidence.

At the conference, a report citing a Centers for Disease Control review explained that data collected through 2005 in a limited number of studies shows that having a prescription drug monitoring program in place had no clear impact on overdose mortality, Clark reports.

Read More

Rural states with declining immunization rates have increasing incidence of whooping cough

In the state that once had the highest immunization rate, Vermont's medical community is not so proud of anymore. Fewer people are vaccinating their children in the nation’s most rural state, reports Dr. Wendy Mahoney, a private practioner in the state. But Vermont isn't alone. Stories about declining immunization have come in from across rural America, Mahoney writes in the Daily Yonder, and they "come in the midst of a pertussis outbreak the likes of which Vermont has not seen in years, if ever." Pertussis is whooping cough.

Mahoney says she can find one reason for the recent outbreak: a new law in her state, like some in other rural states, that allows parents to exempt their children from required vaccinations "because of a personal, moral, or other belief." Mahoney says many rural residents use the exemption, which she finds hard to fathom in the face of scientific advances that prove that vaccination has ended smallpox, wiped out polio in most of the world, and controlled measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, influenza type b and other infectious diseases.

The top map shows the estimated percentage of children enrolled in kindergarten who have been exempted from receiving one or more vaccines in the 2011–12 school year. Comparison with the other map shows that states with large numbers of exemptions are those where whooping cough is making a comeback. (Centers for Disease Control maps)

A comparison between states with low vaccination coverage rates and those reporting higher numbers of whooping cough cases shows some, though not consistent, overlap. (Read more)

In the state that once had the highest immunization rate, Vermont's medical community is not so proud of anymore. Fewer people are vaccinating their children in the nation’s most rural state, reports Dr. Wendy Mahoney, a private practioner in the state. But Vermont isn't alone. Stories about declining immunization have come in from across rural America, Mahoney writes in the Daily Yonder, and they "come in the midst of a pertussis outbreak the likes of which Vermont has not seen in years, if ever." Pertussis is whooping cough.

Mahoney says she can find one reason for the recent outbreak: a new law in her state, like some in other rural states, that allows parents to exempt their children from required vaccinations "because of a personal, moral, or other belief." Mahoney says many rural residents use the exemption, which she finds hard to fathom in the face of scientific advances that prove that vaccination has ended smallpox, wiped out polio in most of the world, and controlled measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, influenza type b and other infectious diseases.

The top map shows the estimated percentage of children enrolled in kindergarten who have been exempted from receiving one or more vaccines in the 2011–12 school year. Comparison with the other map shows that states with large numbers of exemptions are those where whooping cough is making a comeback. (Centers for Disease Control maps)

A comparison between states with low vaccination coverage rates and those reporting higher numbers of whooping cough cases shows some, though not consistent, overlap. (Read more)

Read More

Are fallacies about health reform becoming accepted wisdom? Former New York Times editor Bill Keller says he fears so

"A number of fallacies seem to be congealing into accepted wisdom" about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, former New York Times editor Bill Keller writes for the paper. The myths, he says, are that (1) the law is killing jobs, (2) it's a federal takeover of the health system, (3) the free market would be better, (4) states can fix the problems with health insurance, and (5) the law is a political loser. Here's a capsule of Keller's counterpoints:

(1) Jobs: While some workers "no longer so dependent on employers for their health-care safety net may choose to retire earlier or work part-time," Keller writes, their jobs will be open for others, and he cites FactCheck.org's latest debunking of the job-killer claim.

(2) Takeover: "The main thing the law does is deliver 30 million new customers to the private insurance industry," Keller writes, with emphasis. "Insurance will be governed by new regulations, and supported by new subsidies . . . but the share of health-care spending that comes from the federal government is expected to rise only modestly."

(3) Marketplace: "To the extent there is a profound difference of principle anywhere in this debate, it lies here," Keller writes. He says giving people tax credits to buy their own insurance and care could reduce wasteful spending, but quotes Karen Davis, president of The Commonwealth Fund: Ten percent of the population accounts for 60 percent of the health outlays. They are the very sick, and they are not really in a position to make cost-conscious choices.”

(4) States: "Some states are too poor to adopt worthwhile reforms. Some are intransigent, or held captive by lobbies," Keller writes, noting that the law "underwrites pilot programs to reduce costs, and gives states freedom — some would argue too much freedom — in designing insurance-buying exchanges."

(5) Politics: Because most of the law won't take effect until 2014, "so there are not yet testimonials from enthusiastic, family-next-door beneficiaries. This helps explain why the bill has not won more popular affection. It also explains why the Republicans are so desperate to kill it now, before Americans feel the abundant rewards," Keller writes, calling on Democrats to "mount a full-throated defense." (Read more)

"A number of fallacies seem to be congealing into accepted wisdom" about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, former New York Times editor Bill Keller writes for the paper. The myths, he says, are that (1) the law is killing jobs, (2) it's a federal takeover of the health system, (3) the free market would be better, (4) states can fix the problems with health insurance, and (5) the law is a political loser. Here's a capsule of Keller's counterpoints:

(1) Jobs: While some workers "no longer so dependent on employers for their health-care safety net may choose to retire earlier or work part-time," Keller writes, their jobs will be open for others, and he cites FactCheck.org's latest debunking of the job-killer claim.

(2) Takeover: "The main thing the law does is deliver 30 million new customers to the private insurance industry," Keller writes, with emphasis. "Insurance will be governed by new regulations, and supported by new subsidies . . . but the share of health-care spending that comes from the federal government is expected to rise only modestly."

(3) Marketplace: "To the extent there is a profound difference of principle anywhere in this debate, it lies here," Keller writes. He says giving people tax credits to buy their own insurance and care could reduce wasteful spending, but quotes Karen Davis, president of The Commonwealth Fund: Ten percent of the population accounts for 60 percent of the health outlays. They are the very sick, and they are not really in a position to make cost-conscious choices.”

(4) States: "Some states are too poor to adopt worthwhile reforms. Some are intransigent, or held captive by lobbies," Keller writes, noting that the law "underwrites pilot programs to reduce costs, and gives states freedom — some would argue too much freedom — in designing insurance-buying exchanges."

(5) Politics: Because most of the law won't take effect until 2014, "so there are not yet testimonials from enthusiastic, family-next-door beneficiaries. This helps explain why the bill has not won more popular affection. It also explains why the Republicans are so desperate to kill it now, before Americans feel the abundant rewards," Keller writes, calling on Democrats to "mount a full-throated defense." (Read more)

Read More

Governors in both parties undecided on whether to expand Medicaid; seeking answers to several questions

There is hesitation among governors on both sides of the aisle regarding whether or not to expand Medicaid, which would cover millions more Americans under the program for the poor and disabled.

"At least seven Democratic governors have been noncommittal about their willingness to go along," N.C. Aizenman and Karen Tumulty report for The Washington Post. Gov. Steve Beshear has not indicated whether he will expand coverage in Kentucky, but previously expressed concerns about the costs associated with the move, and state House Republican Leader Jeff Hoover has said he should not. Kentucky would have to start paying part of the extra cost in 2017, and 10 percent of it by 2020. Several Republican governors have said they will not participate, while others say they have not decided.

The issue is surely a major discussion topic at the National Governors Association meeting this week in Williamsburg, Va. Questions remain unanswered: "Will states that opt in have the option of scaling back in future years? If a state that opts out decides it wants to participate at some later point, will the federal government still pay nearly the full cost of covering those who become newly eligible for Medicaid? And can a state participate only partially — for instance, by raising the income cutoff for its program to a level lower than the ceiling envisioned in the law, which is set at 133 percent of the federal poverty line?" Aisenman and Tumulty ask.

NGA Executive Director Dan Crippen said states are confused over what to do. The association has sent a list of questions to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius about the issue. "States need to be making these decisions now, and it's hard to make them if you don't have clarity," said Matt Salo, director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

Sebelius has said she will address concerns during meetings that will take place in various cities starting July 31. There is no deadline yet for when states must choose whether or not to expand. (Read more)

There is hesitation among governors on both sides of the aisle regarding whether or not to expand Medicaid, which would cover millions more Americans under the program for the poor and disabled.

"At least seven Democratic governors have been noncommittal about their willingness to go along," N.C. Aizenman and Karen Tumulty report for The Washington Post. Gov. Steve Beshear has not indicated whether he will expand coverage in Kentucky, but previously expressed concerns about the costs associated with the move, and state House Republican Leader Jeff Hoover has said he should not. Kentucky would have to start paying part of the extra cost in 2017, and 10 percent of it by 2020. Several Republican governors have said they will not participate, while others say they have not decided.

The issue is surely a major discussion topic at the National Governors Association meeting this week in Williamsburg, Va. Questions remain unanswered: "Will states that opt in have the option of scaling back in future years? If a state that opts out decides it wants to participate at some later point, will the federal government still pay nearly the full cost of covering those who become newly eligible for Medicaid? And can a state participate only partially — for instance, by raising the income cutoff for its program to a level lower than the ceiling envisioned in the law, which is set at 133 percent of the federal poverty line?" Aisenman and Tumulty ask.

NGA Executive Director Dan Crippen said states are confused over what to do. The association has sent a list of questions to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius about the issue. "States need to be making these decisions now, and it's hard to make them if you don't have clarity," said Matt Salo, director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

Sebelius has said she will address concerns during meetings that will take place in various cities starting July 31. There is no deadline yet for when states must choose whether or not to expand. (Read more)

Read More