The Top Health Policy Stories of 2012

Health and mental health policy stories dominated 2012.  From how the Affordable Care Act framed the health policy debate at the start of the year to how the Sandy Hook tragedy framed the mental health and public health debate at year’s end, 2012 will go down in history as the most significant year in health policy since the 1960s.

Here are summaries of a few of the biggest news stories.

The Supreme Court Decision on the Affordable Care Act.  Nothing quite compares to the drama of the day in June when the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act to be constitutional.  Few people guessed right in advance that the decision would come down to finding the “individual mandate” to be constitutional because it is a tax, but mandatory Medicaid expansion unconstitutional because it tied future federal funding for the existing state Medicaid programs to the Medicaid expansion.

People on both sides of the debate came away wanting more, and states reluctant to accept the decision waited months to see if the fall election would change the policy environment.  It didn’t.  So as the year drew to a close was whether they, or the federal government, would implement the insurance exchanges.

The Debate over the Future of Medicare.  In the campaign, we all learned more about the two major parties’ competing visions about the future of Medicare.  The Democrats want the current structure of the program preserved; the Republicans would like to make the current Medicare program just one option available to seniors among a variety of private health insurance plan choices.

When the dust settled, the Democratic vision had carried the day.  Nevertheless, Mitt Romney’s supporters argued afterwards that he actually “won” the Medicare debate when he took a majority of the vote of senior citizens.  But even that “victory” may have resulted from the fact that he opposed the $716 billion cut.

Meanwhile, a little compromise is all we really need to preserve Medicare – but not the increase in the age of eligibility policymakers have recently pushed. 

The Medicaid Expansion.  The governors of seven southern states declared in the summer that with Medicaid expansion now an option, they weren’t planning to implement it.  They cited the significant cost of doing so.  Florida, for example, said it would cost $351 million a year, and Texas trumped that with a $4.4 billion price tag. 

But by the end of the year those states were faced with the fact that it will be at least 9 times more expensive not to expand the program.  Not embracing the expansion would cost Florida at least $3.2 billion and Texas $39.6 billion in annual lost federal revenue. 

That’s a lot of money to turn down – especially when the alternative is asking state taxpayers to foot the bill.

The Cuts to State Mental Health Services.  As of 2012, the tally of state budget cuts to mental health services grew to $4.6 billion over the past four years, with no end of cutting in sight.  I wrote about the real-time effects of these cuts in Anna Brown’s Death, California Screaming, the Mental Health Policy Mistakes We Make and the Sons and Daughters Who Pay for Them, and, focusing on veterans, in Iraq and Back and Answering the Call. 

There’s a depressing bottom line to all these stories: people with mental illness got lip service or worse. 

Athletes – and Others – Dying Young.  When Pro Football all-star Junior Seau died in the spring, it revived talk of the Curse of the 1994 San Diego Chargers. He was the 8^th member of that team to die before turning 45.  Were these deaths the cumulative effect of concussions? Or related to long-term side effects of performance-enhancing drugs that ruined the legacy of Lance Armstrong and a host of steroid-era baseball superstars, like Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens?

Not exactly.  At least in the case of the ’94 Chargers, former professional athletes weren’t dying young from concussions or performance-enhancing drugs, but for many of the same reasons – accidents, obesity, heart conditions, and complications from diabetes – non-athletes die young, too.  It’s avoidable, but not when we cut $5 billion from public health as we did this year.

Sandy Hook.  We need to say it again. Violence is a public health problem, not a mental health problem.  If we learn nothing else from tragedy, I hope it will be these three things: anyone of us could be a victim of violence; we can prevent much of it by treating it as a public health problem; and blaming people with mental illness for the increase in violence in America will only lead us down a dark path.

I wish you all a safe, peaceful, and Happy New Year. 

The Tragedy of Sandy Hook

The entire world is in mourning over the senseless and horrifying massacre of innocent children and adults in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. 

This hit so close to home for me, about forty miles from where I grew up.  So many of my former legislative colleagues are among those trying to help the state through it. 

I can’t even pretend to imagine what this must be like for the families of Sandy Hook. 

On the first day of the tragedy, too many politicians trotted out their tired old line that “today is not the day to have the debate” about gun control.  Thank God their tone-deaf voices were silenced by the outcry of reasonable people.

Connecticut Congressman John Larson (D-1) said that “Congress should be prepared to vote on requiring background checks for all gun sales, closing the terrorist watch list loopholes, and banning assault weapons and high capacity clips. Those measures don’t solve all our problems, but they’re a start.”

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) also called for an assault weapons ban.  

But does our nation have the will to do this and more?

I hope so, because if the images of six and seven year olds staring down the barrel of an assault weapon in their last split seconds of life do not motivate us, then nothing will.

And there are two big things that it is past time to do. 

This first is to get lethal firearms out of the hands of people who are not defending us.  The second is to reverse the damage we’ve caused by neglecting and discriminating against people with mental illness because we mistakenly think that they are the cause of all the violence.

According to data reported in July by the Manchester Guardian, we are by far the most gun-toting of all of the most civilized nations in the world.  If the population of Newtown, Connecticut, is just average, then among them they already own 24,513 firearms. 

Adam Lanza’s mother owned the three of them used in the Sandy Hook massacre.  A self-described gun enthusiast, she was reported to feel she needed all this weaponry for safety and self-defense.  In the moment before her life was taken, did she feel safer, or better defended?

A member of Congress from Texas, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-1), thinks we need even more. Does he really believe that the other 24,510 Newtown firearms made the children of Sandy Hook any safer that day?

Perhaps the horror of this massacre might open our eyes to something else – every day, an equal number of our sons and daughters die in our towns and cities because someone shoots them to death.

In 2007 alone, over 9,000 people in our country died because of gun violence, far more than the 6,656 Americans who have died in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since their beginning. 

We can do much better than this.  And, as President Obama declared in Newtown, “we will have to change.”

But making real change is not just finding someone to blame.

After tragedies, we often find at least hints of mental illness in the people using the guns.  But when we do, we miss the point. Violence is not a mental health problem, it is a public health problem.

Today, we are too quick to equate violence with mental illness, too quick to send people with serious mental illnesses to jail, and too quick to balance our state budgets by neglecting the people with the greatest service needs.

Connecticut’s Governor, Dannel Malloy, has shown leadership in his response to the massacre.  But another test of that leadership will come soon.  He recently ordered the rescission of up to $9.5 million in mental health services funding in Connecticut.  This funding is desperately needed to prevent and mitigate mental illnesses.  Governor Malloy is not alone in this regard – in all fifty states $4.6 billion has been cut from state mental health services during the last four years. 

Will Governor Malloy rescind that rescission now, and call on his colleagues around the country to do the same, so we can re-build our nation’s mental health services infrastructure, and better detect and treat mental illnesses early?  Will he help de-stigmatize those with mental illness, who are more often the victims of violence than its perpetrators?

Will the nation have the will to raise the money we need for prevention?

Because only if we do will we be able to say that protecting all of our children from harm is our highest priority.

Addendum:  There are news reports that Adam Lanza’s mother may have, for behavioral reasons, removed him from school at some point for home schooling.  I believe that voluntary or involuntary removal from school is often one step in a years-long chain of events that leads to bad outcomes. 

This time might therefore become a critical intervention point to change a bad trajectory and prevent future tragedies of all sorts – if we were to change our special education policy as follows:

Whenever a parent or a school believes that a special education student needs to be removed from his school for behavioral reasons, either via suspension, expulsion, or voluntary removal, for at least five consecutive days or for at least ten days in the course of a school year, there must be a mediation scheduled within 10 days with the school district, the parents, and the state education department as a mandatory third party.  The purpose would be to develop a new IEP with additional services.  The new IEP must have the input of a child’s regular health and mental health providers, if there are any.  If not, health and behavioral evaluations should be done to inform the mediation, with the state picking up the cost.  If any two parties agree to the additional services, then the services must become an immediate part of the IEP, with the state picking up the additional cost.  If the parents are not one of the parties in agreement, they still reserve their right to go to due process.  If the student is not yet admitted to special education, then the same event should trigger an immediate outside evaluation for eligibility for special education services.

Let’s assume that all parties would act in good faith.  But just in case one were concerned that a local district would low-ball a set of services from the start to shift more costs to the state, then a district could be made responsible for the costs of either its existing plan or the average cost of plans for comparable students in other districts, whichever is greater.

We’re all searching for answers.  This is just one suggestion.

Note: This column was published early this week because of the timeliness of the issue.  My prayers are with the people of Newtown.  Our Health Policy Matters will be return to its regular publication on December 26 and January 2.

Secession Fever

There’s a new disease this year along with the winter flu.  It is called Secession Fever. 

Secession Fever has reached epidemic stage across the south.  As of Monday, there were more than 25,000 cases in each of eight southern states – North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas.  A ninth, Arkansas, had over 23,500.  Collectively, these states had almost 402,000 cases, and the number was still growing.

Secession Fever is a self-reportable disease.  People who have it signed a petition on the White House website.  Secession Fever is characterized by the irrational belief that the federal government does more harm than good, and that states would be better off if they seceded from the Union.

So what if these nine states did secede and form a new Southern Confederacy?  Would their citizens be better off?  Some data from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Central Intelligence Agency suggest not.

In forming the Southern Confederacy, approximately 86 million people would find themselves living in the 14^th most populous country in the world, just behind Vietnam.  (The rest of the United States would drop from 3^rd to 4^th in population, trading places with Indonesia.)

They would find themselves worse off than they think they are.

The percentage of people living in poverty in the Southern Confederacy would be 17 percent, comparable to that in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Turkey.  Meanwhile, the percentage living in poverty in the remaining United States would drop to 14 percent, comparable to the rate in the United Kingdom.

Life expectancy in the Southern Confederacy would also take a hit.  It would decline immediately to 77.7 years, 61^st in the world and comparable to life expectancy in Libya.  In the remaining United States, it would be almost 79 years.

That’s not all.  The health status of Southern Confederacy citizens would decline, too.

One in five residents in the Southern Confederacy would be uninsured, versus only 14 percent in the remaining United States. 

Even that high percentage would grow dramatically without the federal Medicaid and Medicare programs.  Without the federal share of Medicaid dollars, the percentage of uninsured in the Southern Confederacy would grow by at least 9 percent more, to close to 30 percent.  And without Medicare providing insurance for 16 percent of its population, the Southern Confederacy’s uninsured rate would approach 50 percent, killing off nearly every hospital and long term care provider.

Infant mortality would go up, too. 

For every one million births, 1100 more babies would die in the Southern Confederacy than in the remaining United States.  The infant mortality rate in the Southern Confederacy would be 7.5 per thousand – comparable to that found in Chile.

Disease prevention would also take a hit. 

The percentage of overweight adults in the Southern Confederacy would be over 65 percent, pushing ever higher the prevalence of diseases like diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension.

Public health would suffer, too.  The AIDS rate would grow, and the proportion of people infected with HIV in the Southern Confederacy would be similar to that found in Somalia.

Mental health services would not be spared, either. 

Nationally, we currently spend around $120 per capita on mental health services.  But in the Southern Confederacy, state mental health spending would be half that – just $61 per year.

It isn’t that people in the Southern Confederacy have better mental health status and need fewer services.  Just over one-third report being in poor mental health, just as in the rest of the country.  They’re just more likely to be ignored, neglected, or maltreated.

If there were ever a compelling argument for why we need a strong federal government, life in the Southern Confederacy is it.

Aspiring to the health standards of Somalia, Chile, Libya, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Turkey – all nations with much to offer, to be sure – is hardly the stuff of “American Exceptionalism.”  But these nations turn out to be the real role models for those with Secession Fever.

These harsh health conditions reflect the realities of life in these southern states today.  We can argue that we can do better than this, but not if we can’t accept this reality – people are worse off in these states than in the rest of the United States.

Those with Secession Fever – and the political leaders who have fanned the flames of anti-federal sentiment for years – must be living in an alternate universe.

If you would like to schedule Paul Gionfriddo to speak to your group or organization, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

The Rule of 9 and the ACA Medicaid Expansion

There’s a simple way to calculate just how much a state will save in the long term by expanding the Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act.  Just multiply whatever it says it will cost by 9.

That’s because the federal government will contribute at least $9 worth of match for every dollar a state spends on Medicaid expansion.

By now, we’ve all heard just how big some of the match numbers will be.  Based just on the estimates provided by the state itself in its January 2012 Supreme Court brief, Florida, for example, would gain at least $3.2 billion annually.

But Florida’s Governor has openly fought the expansion until recent weeks, and has yet to say whether or not he will support it in any form. 

He’s not the only one.  A weekend article in the Washington Post reported that as many as thirteen states may be leaning against the expansion, versus 17 plus the District of Columbia that are pursuing it.

According to the analysis on which the article was apparently based, the governors of 8 of the 13 anti-expansion states have recently reiterated their opposition to the expansion.  These include six – Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, and Oklahoma – that have been in the “rejection” category since the summer, and two –Maine and Alabama – whose governors added their states to the rejecting list in mid-November.

These governors typically cite the cost of the expansion as the reason to reject it.

However, a report released last week by the Kaiser Family Foundation took a close look at these costs over the next ten years and came to a different conclusion.  During a decade when the federal match will range from 90% to 100% for newly covered populations, the first column in the table below represents the incremental cost of the expansion over ten years for each of the eight current rejecting states.  And the second column represents the increased federal revenues each state will receive if it changes its mind:

Alabama             $1.1 billion          $14.3 billion

Georgia               $2.5 billion          $33.7 billion

Louisiana             $1.2 billion          $15.8 billion

Mississippi          $1.0 billion          $14.5 billion

Texas                  $5.7 billion          $55.6 billion

South Carolina   $1.2 billion           $15.8 billion

Oklahoma           $689 million        $8.6 billion

Maine                 ($570 million)      $3.1 billion

That comes to over $160 billion in lost revenue to these eight states alone.

Those lost billions represent money that will reimburse hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers, doctors, nurses, and behavioral health providers for care they will have to provide anyway.   

It’s especially hard to imagine what the Governor of Maine could be thinking.  Its $3.1 billion in new federal Medicaid revenue would actually be accompanied by a reductionin state Medicaid spending over the next ten years. 

The same is true in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Iowa, Vermont, and Wisconsin.  With the exception of Iowa and Wisconsin, the others are all – logically – working toward expansion.

By the rule of 9 alone, it would seem that Medicaid expansion would be as close to a policy no-brainer as a state could get.

But just as there is a reason beyond the headlines why some states are reluctant to embrace setting up state health insurance exchanges under ACA, there is a reason why they don’t want to expand Medicaid, too.

It is because – just as in the case of rejecting ACA health insurance exchanges – states that are thinking of rejecting the Medicaid expansion just don’t do a very good job of protecting the health and mental health of their population.

On average, the thirteen states embracing the Medicaid expansion rank just under 17^th in the Best States for Your Health ranking, while the eight current rejecting states rank 39^th– a huge difference despite the presence of Maine, ranked 8^thoverall, on the rejecting list.

And on average, the thirteen states embracing the Medicaid expansion currently average 20^th overall in spending on mental health services, while the rejecting states together average 36^th. 

Some state governors saying no to expansion claim that the reason is because they are worried that the federal government will someday cease to fulfill its end of the bargain to pay 90% of the costs. 

But what I think they are really communicating is something else.  They personally reflect the view that health and mental health are not priorities in their state.  And they still hope to elect more people like them to Congress in the coming years to kill the expansion.

It’s cynical to hope for this, and it won’t happen.