A Dime's Worth of Difference in 2012

With the Iowa caucuses finally behind us, the Presidential campaign of 2012 now begins in earnest, and will dominate our news and lives for the next year.  I predict we will hear words like "Obamacare," “Romneycare,” “government takeover,” and “individual mandate” (usually in sentences following the word “repeal”) until we can’t stand it anymore.

If this is to be our fate in the New Year, then perhaps we can take some comfort in knowing that the debate probably won’t make a dime’s worth of difference about where most of us get our health care over the next few years or how we pay for it.

This is because the 2010 Affordable Care Act and the individual mandate were not really health reform.  They were efforts to preserve health insurance as we know it, by getting more people who can afford it to purchase private insurance, and more who cannot onto the Medicaid public insurance program.

So maybe we should take a minute between caucuses, primaries, and the general election to imagine what real health reform in America would look like in 2012.

It isn’t hard.  We just have to keep in mind a few facts.

First, governments already pay approximately $1.8 trillion of our roughly $2.5 trillion annual national health care bill.  Individuals pay another $300 billion out-of-pocket.  These numbers aren’t going down, whether the Affordable Care Act is upheld or repealed by the Supreme Court in June.

Second, there is plenty of money in our health system to delivery high quality health care to everyone who needs it.  We just need to target it to prevention as well as treatment.

Third, for the relatively small amount of money they put into the system, insurance companies have been given an outsized role in determining when, where, and how our health care is delivered.

Fourth, we woefully underfund our most important health services.  Public health and prevention activities have accounted for half of the gains in life expectancy during the last century, but receive far less than 5% of health care funding. 

And fifth, we criminalize instead of preventing and treating much of mental illness, and have made jails our nation’s largest mental health institutions.

With those facts in mind, we should acknowledge what real health reform isn’t.

It is not Romney’s or Obama’s “individual mandate” to buy private health insurance people don’t want and won’t trust.

It is also not Ron Paul’s notion of leaving people to fend for themselves in some non-existent “health care marketplace.”  No civilized nation does this and we are not going to be the first.

Here’s what a true American health reform – one that would result in healthier citizens, better access to care when it is needed, lower long term costs of care, and better quality – would look like.

1.       We would rebuild our health care delivery system around the federalized funding that already dominates health financing.  Medicare would be our basic national health insurance program, and be available to everyone.

2.       Medicaid would become a federal program like Medicare, and cover only long term care needs including chronic mental illnesses.  There would be no means-tested eligibility. States would not have to pay for it or administer it, so they could lower their state taxes accordingly.

3.       Private insurers, which are already such a small part of the overall health financing market, would play a role to which they are more suited.  They could offer supplemental insurance products covering first-dollar deductibles, co-pays, and additional, discretionary consumer services (like private hospital rooms and gourmet meals) at whatever prices they could get, for whatever profit they could make. 

4.       The Medicaid program could still require that people spend down a considerable portion of their own resources before it covered the remainder of long term care costs.  But we should allow everyone to set up tax-deferred long term care savings accounts to use for themselves, members of their families, or anyone else they designate.

5.       We would double the percentage of health dollars in public health and prevention over the next ten years.

How could we finance such as system of care?  The reality is that this system probably wouldn’t cost us any more than the current one does, and would probably cost less.

Of course, we won’t get this reform, but we can dream.  And I’d much prefer such a real policy debate about health reform in 2012 to the one we’re scheduled to receive – Mitt Romney attacking the individual mandate he invented and Barack Obama defending the individual mandate he opposed. 

If you have questions about this column or wish to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

We Need Foundations to Innovate in Health Care

Implementing health reform in the states is a governmental responsibility.  But Kaiser Health News reported this week that states are turning to foundations to help them with the costs of implementing these reforms. 

Financing governmental duties has not traditionally been the role of a foundation.  Governmental programs should be implemented efficiently, but asking foundations to pay for this implementation is drawing dollars away from the most important work of foundations.

This important work involves investing resources in promising initiatives that aren’t yet “government ready.”  Foundations are uniquely equipped to provide seed funding to experimental and innovative programs before they are ready for governmental action.

On the other hand, funding governmental obligations leads to two unintended consequences. 

First, it relieves governments of their obligation to justify to the public the expenditures they need to make to implement their programs.  This always seems to lead to unrealistic public expectations about how much things costs, and problems down the road with funding them.

Second, it takes limited foundation dollars away from innovation and experimentation.  Not every foundation initiative will succeed, and that’s the point.  While some fail quietly, many have changed the way we understand and address health problems in America.  Some of the best fundamentally change American society for the better. 

To name just three recent examples that illustrate this point, consider our 30 year history with HIV/AIDS, our emerging approaches to addressing the mental health epidemic, and our understanding of health disparities across populations and regions.  

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation created the AIDS Health Services Program in 1986, five years after AIDS was first reported in the United States.  It was also the same year that President Reagan first mentioned AIDS publically.  While government responded slowly to the crisis, the RWJF initiative flourished and was responsible for enabling the Ryan White CARE Act, which wasn’t passed by Congress for four more years.  

Foundations are also leading the way in breaking down the barriers between health care and mental health care.  Primary and behavioral health “integration” emerged as a treatment strategy in the early 1990s, nurtured along by foundation investments.  It took the federal government fifteen more years before it began to make a serious commitment to integration through passage of the Mental Health Parity Act in 2008, the Medicare Mental Health parity law in 2008, and the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

Health disparities are underreported and poorly understood.  This is because they often offer no “local angle” to a story, but can only be understood in the context of comparing one group or region to another.  Such comparisons are easily dismissed as “apples to oranges” by local policymakers.

However, a government-supported university-based study shows vast and stunning differences in the life expectancies of various racial and geographic groups in the United States that can’t be so easily dismissed. 

The complete article, authored by Christopher Murray and others, is rich in comparative data, and its conclusions are more than troubling.  Asian Americans in well-integrated counties have a life expectancy that is 15 years longer than African Americans living in urban settings sometimes just a few miles away.  Rural white Americans in the Midwest have a 7 year life expectancy advantage over rural African Americans in the south. 

Native American and African American men have life expectancies of between 60 and 70 years, but Asian American and white women living in rural areas have life expectancies well into their 80s.  These numbers are underscored by readily-available CDC data tables. 

Nevertheless, the federal government did not make a major commitment to funding specific programs aimed at tackling disparities until more than four years after this study was published.  Just recently, HHS announced its Promotores de Salud community health workers initiative, a strategy specifically designed to address health disparities in minority populations.

However, as Grantmakers in Health points out, both local and national foundations have been focused on this problem for years, leading the way by funding important initiatives looking at both populations and place as determinants of health status for many years.

At their finest, foundations lead governments to action by experimenting with differing approaches to solving emerging policy problems, and finding and promoting those that work best.

It’s government’s job to bring them to scale.  Then it can solve the underlying problems – like AIDS treatment and prevention, mental health and primary health care integration, and health disparities – it may have been too timid to address, either because it didn’t know what would work or because it didn’t know what the public would support.

Asking foundations also to take on this job of government will reduce the dollars available for innovation and experimentation.  The risk is that we miss out on finding an early solution to the next public health crisis.

To receive an email notifying you when new columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Want to find a source of data used in Our Health Policy Matters? Most data sources and past column charts can be accessed using the "data source" and "charts" tabs at the top of this page.

Health Reform's First Birthday

Babies crawl before they walk.



c. Microsoft Office Image

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) marks its first birthday this week.  It may not be off to a running start, but it isn’t exactly sitting still either.
 

The most debated provisions, like the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansions, are still three years in the future.

In the first year, ACA’s biggest developmental milestones have affected older Americans, people with mental and physical disabilities, and consumers in general.  Which of these populations is making the most progress?

Medicare recipients and early retirees have taken the most steps forward.   

As of January 1^st, all Medicare Part B recipients are entitled to a free annual physical, with free cancer, cardiovascular, and skeletal screenings, and free flu shots.  150,000 beneficiaries had taken advantage of this through February 23^rd.  This number will grow, to many millions before the end of the year.

Also, over 3.4 million Part D recipients who fall into the donut hole will receive an average savings of over $500 on brand name drugs this year.  Many already received $250 rebate checks last year, and the value of this benefit will increase annually as the donut hole closes over the next several years.

Early retirees are also keeping up.  The law allows employers to keep retirees between the ages of 55 and 65 on their plans, and to get reimbursed for some of the costs. 

As of December 31^st, 5,452 plan sponsors had been approved to participate in the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP).  Two states – New York and California – had over 500 participants.  Eight others – Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Florida, and Texas – had over 200.

An estimated 4.5 million early retirees, spouses, and dependents were included. 

Also, the Federal Government had reimbursed $535 million in costs as of December 31.

There were huge differences in the amount of reimbursements paid, with just a few states claiming most of the money.  Georgia had been reimbursed for almost $52 million, with $35 million in direct reimbursements to the state plan alone.  All participating plans combined in its next door neighbor, my home state Florida, had collected a mere $305,000. 

Plans themselves are responsible for claiming reimbursement for high-cost retirees.  It's hard to imagine that Georgia has so many more than Florida.

People with mental and physical disabilities are struggling to move forward. 

Children with pre-existing conditions won coverage on their parents’ plans as of September, but the ban on denying adults with pre-existing conditions access to regular insurance doesn’t take effect until 2014. ACA established Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans (PCIP) all 50 states in the summer of 2010 to provide temporary insurance for these people.  

The Administration hoped that up to 250,000 people would find health insurance through these plans, but only 12,437 had enrolled in PCIP plans as of February 1.  Pennsylvania led the way with over 2,000 enrollees, followed by Texas, Illinois, Ohio, California, North Carolina, and Florida. 

Although the price of the plans (usually between $300 and $500 per month) is significantly lower than traditional individual plans for people with disabilities, it is still proving too high for many underemployed adults.

Consumers in general are taking one backward step for every two forward ones. 

The implementation of consumer protections was the biggest news of the first year.  As of September, as plans are renewed, parents can cover their children up to the age of 26, and insurance can’t be denied to children because of pre-existing conditions.  It also can’t be cancelled when children or adults get sick, and annual and lifetime insurance limits are on their way out.

However, not every consumer protection applies to grandfathered plans.

Also, to assure that low-cost, low-benefit plans would not go out of business abruptly, the Administration has granted hundreds of one-year waivers from the annual limit provisions.  As of late January, 733 waivers were granted for plans covering 2.1 million Americans.

Since then, the number of approved waivers for all reasons has increased to over a thousand, affecting 2.6 million Americans.  In early March, Maine received the first waiver from the most important consumer protection in the ACA, the one mandating that 80% of all premium dollars in individual insurance plans be paid out in benefits.

This year, Maine’s individual plans will only have to pay out 65% in benefits, meaning that they could theoretically make up to a 50% profit on every premium payment.  Several other anti-consumer states are asking for similar waivers to protect insurers.

While loss-ratio waivers demonstrably harm consumers, the Administration has announced that it is moving forward with another consumer protection.  It published a notice in early March to require any insurer proposing to increase rates by more than 10% to provide a breakdown to customers of the reasons for the increase.

Baby steps.  That’s what we’ve learned to expect from the first year of life, and that’s what we’re getting. 

A Long Term Care Win for Everyone

Why is it so important that Florida has won a $35.7 million health reform act grant to participate in the federal “Money Follows the Person” program?

A recent news story provides the answer.   It tells the story of a 20-something Florida resident who is a quadriplegic living in a nursing home.  He doesn’t want to live there.  But he doesn’t have a choice.  It’s the only option for which the Florida Medicaid program will pay. 

We hope he’ll be alive for many years.  A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the cost of his care could approach $4 million by the time he is 65.

A December, 2009, AARP Long Term Care Brief showed that Florida spent 86% of its Medicaid long term care dollar on institution-based services.  It spent about half the national average on home and community-based services (HCBS).

The “Money Follows the Person” program offers a low cost remedy. 

Enacted in 2007, the program has already provided over $1.4 billion to 30 states.  It has helped over 30,000 people transition from nursing home care to lower-cost community-based care.    

The result is improved well-being, greater independence, and more productivity at lower cost.  Not just young people benefit; many older Americans with chronic conditions also prefer living at home.

Wildly popular, the program was re-authorized by the Affordable Care Act.  It was extended for several years and expanded to allow more states to participate.  By accepting the new federal grant, Florida will be one of them. 

In spite of the bluster that Florida would refuse to implement any of “Obamacare,” AHCA and the Governor saw the wisdom of pursuing this piece aggressively. 

Florida may have come late to this party, but better late than never. 

The cost of long term care is one of the biggest drivers of the increase in health care costs in our country.  A majority of our population has one or more chronic conditions.  These conditions are often diagnosed and monitored using expensive medical tests.  They are managed with costly pharmaceuticals.  People with them often need physical and occupational therapy and other supports.  Treatment costs may rise in the future, because genetic therapies are on the horizon.

In a recent issue brief on Medicaid and long term care, the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions noted that Medicaid expenditures are projected to increase by 7.5% per year, largely due to the increase in the numbers of elders and others with chronic conditions on the program.  Examining Florida and nine other states, Deloitte estimated that the percentage of state resources devoted to long term care could double over the next twenty years. 

Controlling long term care costs should be a priority for everyone.  However, this isn’t always the case.  The report noted with concern that states are cutting back on lower-cost community-based services covered by Medicaid, instead of increasing them.

That’s what makes the “Money Follows the Person” program so important.  It helps expand community-based services, at a time they are sorely needed.

Florida’s action also serves as a reminder that the Affordable Care Act isn’t one big government health care program.  It is a collection of smaller, independent initiatives that affect many different components of our health care delivery system.

Another provision of the Act – the creation of the CLASS Long Term Care Insurance program, effective in October, 2012 – is also aimed at changing the way we finance long term care in the future.  It will make more private long term care insurance available for home and community-based care.  My wife and I purchased long term care insurance policies several years ago, when we were in our early 50s and healthy.  Unfortunately, many others wait until it’s too late. 

The HHS National Clearinghouse for Long Term Care Information notes that over 70% of us will need long term care services at some point in our lives.   HHS Secretary Sebelius has pointed out that one in six people who reach the age of 65 will spend over $100,000 in their lifetime on long term care.  The total cost could be upwards of $5 trillion.  The government can’t pay all this.  Private long term care insurance will be needed.    

However, as the planning for the CLASS program is unfolding, people who develop serious chronic conditions before applying for long term care insurance may be out of luck.  To keep insurance costs affordable, HHS is considering limiting the program to higher wage-earning, healthier people at the start. 

That means Medicaid will remain the main long term care payer for the foreseeable future. 

The more it can do to help 20-somethings stay in the community and be productive, the better off we all will be.  This is a health care reform with which no elected official should disagree.

What Polls Say About Our Attitude Toward Health Reform and Mental Illness

What did the politician say after bumping his head while walking along a sidewalk as he waved to his constituents?   “I never look at the poles.”

Whether political leaders admit to looking at the polls or not, when you look beyond the headlines some current polls are saying a lot about how people feel about health and mental health policy issues. 

In the spirit of post-State of the Union bipartisanship, let’s hope that President Obama and Congressional leaders use three recent polls to listen to us about health reform, and to educate us about mental illness.

First, this is what the President and members of Congress will hear if they listen to what people are telling pollsters about the health reform law.

• We like a number of the elements of health reform, and don’t want them repealed.
• We’re not afraid that health reform will affect our existing health coverage.
• We don’t think the current law went too far.

The headlines from three January polls suggest that we remain divided about the reform law, with slightly more opposing it than favoring it. 

A Rasmussen survey found that 53% of voters favor repealing the law and 43% do not.  In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 50% said they opposed the health reform law versus 45% who favored it.  An AP-GfK poll found the public evenly split on the new law, with 41% saying they opposed it and 40% saying they favored it. 

But when we listen beyond the headlines, we hear a different voice. 

In the AP-GfK Poll, only 26% supported repealing the law in its entirety.  An earlier Rasmussen poll also found a minority for full repeal of the law – 39%. In the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 18% said that they favored total repeal. 

Support for full repeal isn't very high, and the reason is that we like many parts of the new law.  In the AP-GfK poll, the public supported by 50%-34% the prohibition on insurers denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions (such as cancer, mental illness, diabetes, and heart disease), and by 59%-34% the prohibition on insurers cancelling coverage because someone becomes sick.

We're also not afraid that the law is going to have an adverse effect on insurance we have and like.  In the Rasmussen poll, only 34% said that they thought the law was likely to force them to change their existing coverage.  

There are also a lot of people who think that the law should go farther.  In the ABC Poll, one in four said that the reason they opposed the law was because it didn’t go far enough.  Over half of those who supported it agreed with them, also favoring a reform law that would go farther than the current one does. 

source: ABC News/Wash Post Poll 1/11

These are a lot of numbers to absorb all at once, but the bottom line is pretty straightforward, and paints a far different picture from the headline.  35% said the law went too far, 19% said it was just right, and a slight plurality – 38% - said it didn’t go far enough. 

Politicians who ignore this message do so at their own peril. 

Second, here is why the President and members of Congress need to provide leadership in educating us about mental illness in the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy.

• We believe erroneously that mental illness causes violence. 

Some people with mental illness commit violent acts, but mental illness is not usually the reason.  One quarter of our population has a diagnosable mental illness each year, and this group is no more likely to be violent than the other three quarters.  Substance abuse (but not substance abuse treatment), juvenile detention, physical abuse, and past history of violence are predictors of future violent behavior, but mental illness is not. 

We need leaders who are willing to speak that truth to us.    

As was noted by researchers at the University of Tulsa in 2008, media reporting on events like the Tucson shooting makes a difference in how people react to the event, contributes to misperceptions about people with mental illness, and deflects attention away from the actual context of violent acts.  

Leaders need to speak up before our responses to violence do more harm than good.

In the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 83% said that they would support increasing federal funding to add people treated for mental illness to the federal gun registry in an effort to prevent them from buying guns, and 71% said that they would support this for people treated for substance abuse.

source: ABC News/Wash Post Poll 1/11

We are so scared of mental illness that 83% of us would waste precious tax dollars creating a registry that would violate the confidentiality of one quarter of our population while doing nothing to address the real causes of violence in our society.

That’s hard to understand, but I guess we all bump into polls sometimes and come up rubbing our heads.

If you like this blog, become a follower or subscribe to it, and help get the word out by sharing it with friends and associates!

The Impact of Health Reform Repeal on Florida

Why should Floridians care if members of its House of Representatives delegation vote to repeal all the provisions of health reform this week?

Because even though the Senate and the President have said they will stop the measure dead in its tracks, a vote to repeal is a vote against the interests of Floridians.

If every provision of health reform were to be repealed, here are just some of the people of Florida who would be affected:

• 86,300 young adults who would lose insurance coverage through their parents’ health insurance plans;
• 182,672 Medicare recipients in the donut hole who would be charged at least $250 more for their prescription drugs in 2011 than they were in 2010;
• Early retirees of 190 Florida employers – including the University of Miami, Stetson University, Eckerd College, the PGA Tour, Inc., The Wackenhut Corporation, Tampa General Hospital, the Archdiocese of Miami, the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, the Florida Firefighters Insurance Trust Fund, Duvall County Public Schools, the Cities of Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, St. Petersburg, and Fort Lauderdale, and the town of Palm Beach – who have already applied to keep their retirees on their health insurance plans (full disclosure: I also get this benefit as an early retiree of the State of Connecticut);   
• 3.2 million Florida Medicare recipients, who would have to pay out-of-pocket for an annual check-up, mammograms, and colonoscopies;
• More than 8.7 million residents with private health insurance coverage who would lose consumer protections like the ban on insurers cancelling coverage because they become sick, and the ban on insurers using pre-existing conditions as an excuse not to insure people in the first place;
• Up to 290,000 small businesses in Florida now eligible for tax credits to cover the cost of health insurance for their employees.

People and businesses in every state would experience similar impacts if the reform law were repealed.



Members of the House who cast a vote for repeal are casting a vote against these constituents.  Is casting a vote against tax credits for small businesses, health and prescription coverage for Medicare recipients, and aid for employers and their early retirees really working on behalf of constituents? If not, then whose interests are they really serving?



What To Do About Health Reform?
source: AP-GfK Poll, January, 2011



According to a new AP-GfK poll, the public emphatically does not want Congress to repeal the reform law.  We’re still evenly divided about it, with 40% saying we support it and 41% saying we oppose it.  But when we’re asked what we want to do about it, only 26% want to repeal it completely and only 10% more want it to do less.  Four times as many – 43% -- want it to do more.

In the same poll, by the way, 59% opposed the mandate that individuals buy policies if they can afford them, but 59% supported the mandate that employers offer insurance to their employees.  This perhaps proves once and for all that as a nation we love mandates, provided they’re someone else's mandates!

The bottom line is that we want more health insurance coverage, not less, and we don’t want to lose the benefits we have. 

Does this matter to our elected officials?  If they’re representing our interests, it should.  But as Jim Saunders reported in Health News Florida last week, Florida Governor Rick Scott and 31 other Governors hold a different view.  Fearing they’re not up to the job of balancing their own state budgets without help from the federal government, they want permission to ignore Medicaid “maintenance of effort” provisions in the law.  These are the provisions that assure that states will do no harm to current Medicaid recipients, including seniors and children, over the next few years.

Scott wrote that “Florida should get to determine what program is the right fit for our state in terms of a Medicaid program,” even though he’s asking the Federal government to continue to pay more than half the cost.

What does this really mean?  Governor Scott and others want the Federal money they get for Medicaid, but they also want the power to dump as many mandated benefits from the program as they can, no matter how much harm this may do. 

Is this really the direction they think they were given by voters in 2010?

The Top Ten Health Policy Stories of 2010, Part 2

Last week, I reviewed five of my top ten health policy stories of the year.  Here are the other five, all of which involved matters that will have a major impact on our day-to-day lives in the coming years.

5.  The Enactment of CLASS.  Private long term care insurance has been on the policy agenda since the 1980s.  Seniors realized that the cost of long term care could bankrupt them, so they began protecting their assets by transferring them to their children.  The state and federal governments were left to pay the tab, and went looking for help.

Private long term care insurance products were developed as a solution.  However, not enough people bought them.  When they were young, people didn’t think they would need the insurance, but once they got into their 60s and 70s, the premiums were too high.  This year, the federal government took action. 

Tucked into the pages of the health reform legislation is a new government-sponsored long term care insurance program starting in 2012, called CLASS, aimed at making long term care insurance more common and more affordable.  It will probably take a generation or more before its benefits are fully realized, meaning that this was a vote for our children and grandchildren.  Passing it knowing they won’t be around to get the credit for it was a class act on the part of the members of Congress.

4. The Closing of the Medicare Donut Hole.  The Medicare Donut Hole was more like a black hole for the seniors who fell into it each year.  As of 2010, consumers paid the first $310 in drug costs, and were reimbursed for 75% of their drug costs between $310 and $2,830.  Then they entered the donut hole, where they were completely responsible for approximately the next $3,600 in costs.  Finally, once their out-of-pocket drug costs in a year hit $4,550, their prescription benefits kicked in again and paid 95% of whatever remained. 

This was confusing and expensive, and it came to embody the worst of our confusing system of insurance reimbursements for over two million people trapped in the donut hole each year.

Reform legislation is closing the Donut Hole over the next ten years.  When the first $250 rebate checks arrived this year, Medicare beneficiaries could see the light again. 

3.  The Enactment of Consumer Protections in Health Reform.  By now, we’re all familiar with the new consumer protections we have.  Insurers can’t deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they can’t drop people who become sick, and they can’t cap annual and lifetime benefits.    Several are already in effect.  Others are on their way.

Some states are arguing that they don’t have the authority to enforce them, and that could present a problem for consumers in the short term.  However, these provisions are so popular that it is likely that if states don’t enforce them, Congress will probably take further steps to ensure they do.

2.  The Comeback of Government Regulation in the Private Health Insurance Market.  For the past thirty years, the mantras of government have been “protect the free marketplace” and “less regulation, not more.” 

First, opponents of health reform argued for a freer marketplace to bring down insurance costs.  Then proponents argued that if the federal government could provide insurance at a lower cost than the private sector, it should be allowed to compete in that market. 

When the public option died, however, the alternative was to establish a more regulated, less-free market.

When Congress set minimum loss ratios (of 80 for individual policies and 85 for most group policies, meaning that insurers must pay out 80 to 85 cents in benefits for every dollar they collect in premiums), this was a very traditional, back to the 1970s, regulatory response to a problem.  Private insurers won’t have to compete directly with the government, but they will have to meet standards the government sets.

And number 1, the Passage of Any Health Reform at All.  We forget how much in doubt this was after the election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts.   When Brown won in an upset, it looked for several weeks like there would be no bill at all.  Finally, President Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders hammered out a compromise that could pass with simple majority votes using the budget reconciliation process, and the most significant health care legislation since Medicare and Medicaid was signed into law in late March.  In the true spirit of representative government, the final compromises left no one completely happy, setting the stage for more health policy debate in the future.

Happy New Year!  Thank you for helping me launch Our Health Policy Matters over the past two months.  I’ll kick off 2011 next week by making some predictions about some upcoming health policy debates.

The Top Ten Health Policy Stories of 2010, Part 1

2010 was the most significant year in health policy since the 1960s.  It dominated the policy agenda for the first few months of the year, and it stayed in the news throughout the election season.  As the year drew to a close, conflicting lower court decisions about the constitutionality of the individual mandate foreshadowed a continued policy debate into the foreseeable future. 

What makes a health policy story big in a time of change?  It’s not just the attention it commands in the media.  It’s the impact it has on our lives. 

This week and next, I’ll countdown ten.   Using the impact criterion, there were actually some that weren’t part of health reform!   

Here are my choices for numbers ten through six.

10. The Election of Senator Scott Brown.  It is hard to remember that as we entered 2010, the Democrats seemed to be putting the finishing touches on a bill that could pick up 60 votes in the Senate.  Lincoln, Lieberman, and Nelson were among the ones to whom everyone was paying attention.  Then, Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, and everything changed.  The Democrats lost control of the issue and public opinion.  That one special election almost derailed the entire effort and ultimately changed the look of the final legislation.

9.  The Change in Tax Treatment of Dependent Health Insurance.  Until the IRS changed the rule in March, when you kept your child on your health insurance up to age 26, you paid taxes on the benefit.  Had this not been changed, then the health reform provision allowing parents to keep adult children on their insurance would have been a mixed blessing at best.  Many might have refused or been unable to do so when they factored what could have been hundreds of dollars of increased taxes.

8. The Death of the Public Option.  Even though it had majority support in both chambers, Congress put the public option to rest early in the year when leaders realized that they could not muster the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Senate filibuster against it.  Once it was gone, public sentiment tilted slightly against health reform.  Reform-minded Democrats were upset with their Congressional leadership, and a portion of the Democratic base disappeared along with it.  Proponents and opponents of reform seemed to agree on one thing – if a public option had been offered to people, many would have chosen it because it likely would have been less expensive than some or all of the private alternatives. 

7.  The Rebirth of the Public Option.   No one called it this, but when the final health reform bill included an expansion of Medicaid reaching 17 million new people in 2014, including nearly every family with income under $30,000, the public option was alive again – at least for people at lower income levels.  With Medicare also a public program, the only people left in the private insurance market were those under age 65 earning $30,000 and up.  And the reform law provided for subsidies for most of them.  We may not yet have the single payer system that progressives wanted, but we might still be headed in that direction. 

Public options are not going anywhere soon.  Mike Huckabee, who will likely be a significant early player in the Presidential campaign, favors repeal of the new law.  This fall he argued for a further expansion of the Medicaid program as an alternative to the mandate that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions.  It’s pretty clear.  In the light of the day and out of the heat of the moment, so long as public options are called something else, they often generate support across the ideological spectrum.

6.  Mental Health Parity.  Mental health parity this year was an under-the-radar policy story with sweeping consequences. New mental health parity provisions, enacted in 2008, finally became law in 2010.  For the first time ever, mental illness must be given the same treatment in insurance as other chronic conditions. 

It became harder than ever for public officials not to do this as increasing numbers of people with mental illness advocated for fairness, and as other chronic conditions, like diabetes and hypertension, became more common and more costly.  Parity is a big deal, especially to the millions of people with serious mental illness, but when it happened at the beginning of the year it got little attention in media consumed by the fiery health reform debate.

Ironically, the mental health parity law also attracted little news attention when it was passed in late 2008.  Why was this?  It was tacked onto the first major financial bailout bill signed into law by former President Bush!

Next Wednesday, I’ll give you my top five health policy stories of the year. 

Healthy Reforms

In the 1990s, the Department of Health and Human Services looked at health spending versus the improvements in the health of our population in the 20^th century.  The results were startling.

97 percent of our spending was in health care, versus 3 percent in wellness and prevention – the activities of public health.  Despite the meager investment in public health, however, 50% of the improvement in our health status could be attributed to it.

Managing our health and preventing disease means a longer life. 

I admit that this lesson wasn’t lost on me. 

I run or take long walks at least three times a week, eat five portions of fruits or vegetables a day and no red meat, enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, and do my best to manage my stress.  My weight today is just a little higher than it was when I was in high school forty years ago.

Those are the things I can do by myself, but they’re not enough.

Without statins my cholesterol numbers would be a nightmare.  So I also go for my annual physical.  I review my blood work and have an EKG. I discuss with my physician the vitamins and medications I may need for the coming year.

Not everyone puts that much effort into being healthy.  This is because we expect to be healthy and take it for granted until we get sick.  Then we hope modern medicine can fix us.

In a nutshell, this probably explains why we spend so much for health care, and so little for prevention.  We literally leave well-enough alone. If there’s no crisis, we’re not motivated to act.

Fifty or a hundred years ago,  when doing nothing about our wellness meant that our drinking water was polluted, communicable diseases crippled or killed our children, and our air was thick with haze, our grandparents understood the consequences of doing nothing.  So they cleaned up our environment and invested in our health, and that’s why we live longer lives than they did. 

But spending on prevention for the past few decades has been more like rowing against the current.  It has been overwhelmed by the tide of spending on health care.

That’s about to change, however.  This is because our crisis meter is ticking upward along with our weight, the number of chronic conditions from which we suffer, and the huge amount of money we’re spending to try to get well again. 

Congress noticed this year, and took some major steps this year to get our minds off of sickness and back on wellness and health.  Note that none of these provisions are affected by any of the court battles over reform.

Here are several of the most significant, cutting across populations and strategies: 

·         Beginning in 2011, all Medicare recipients will have access to a free, annual check-up, other free preventive services, and free colorectal and cancer screening.

·         Private health insurance plans established after September, 2010, must cover preventive services, including immunizations, without charging deductibles, co-pays, or co-insurance.  These provisions also apply to Medicaid as of January 1, 2011.   “Grandfathered” private plans will not be required to do this immediately, but some may anyway.  Most others will be adding this coverage over the next three years. 

·         Employers will be allowed to offer employees a health insurance discount of up to 30% if they participate in wellness programs.

·         Employers with fewer than 100 employees will be eligible for grants totaling $200 million nationwide from 2011 through 2015 to create comprehensive workplace wellness programs for employees.  If successful, these could in turn lower the premiums these employers have to pay for health insurance.

·         Up to $1.5 billion from 2010 through 2014 are being granted to states and nonprofits for maternal, infant, and early childhood home visitation programs to improve infant health, child development, and school readiness.

·         A Public Health and Prevention Fund has been established with $6 billion through 2015, and $2 billion a year thereafter, to support investments in public health and prevention programs authorized under the Public Health Services Act. 

·         Community transformation grants will allow communities to attack and mitigate environmental factors, such as a lack of playgrounds and unsafe neighborhoods, which lead to poorer health among residents.

·         Restaurants with 20 or more locations must provide nutrition labeling on standard menu items.  Vending machine operators with twenty or more machines must provide calorie counts for all machine items.   The regulations implementing these programs will be issued in 2011.

These gifts to our health will go a long way toward improving both the length and quality of our lives.  Of course, we’ll have to work just as hard to keep our bodies running well.  It’s good to know that our elected representatives are alongside us in the effort.   

Extra: Read my Guest Blog in Health Affairs Grantwatch Blog on how foundations can invest to improve access to care.