How The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Affects Health Care: Six Questions

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto

The impending “fiscal cliff” is a package of automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to kick in next month unless President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill agree on a way to stop them.

Negotiations to avert the cuts are ongoing and both sides have exchanged offers. The president and congressional Democrats have said they will reduce spending on entitlements, including Medicare, if Republicans will agree to increase tax rates on the highest earners. While Republicans have agreed to more revenue, they oppose increasing tax rates, preferring to focus on closing loopholes and eliminating some deductions.

Here are a few questions and answers about what could happen in the weeks before the end-of-year deadline.

Q: If no deal is struck, how would that affect Medicare patients as well as the hospitals and physicians and other providers who care for them?

A: Under the series of automatic spending cuts known as “sequestration,” Medicare providers would be subject to an across-the-board 2 percent payment cut, or $11 billion in fiscal 2013.  According to a September report from the Office of Management and Budgethospitals would bear the largest share of the cuts, with payments reduced by about $5.8 billion.

Seniors would see no changes in their benefits.

Q:  How does that 2 percent cut in payments to physicians affect the 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors already scheduled to occur in January? 

A: Physicians who accept Medicare patients would face the 2 percent cut on top of an already scheduled 27 percent reduction in January unless Congress steps in to stop it.

That payment formula was created in a 1997 deficit reduction law that called for setting Medicare physician payment rates through a formula based on economic growth. It’s known as the “sustainable growth rate” (SGR).

For the first few years, Medicare expenditures did not exceed the target and doctors received modest pay increases. But in 2002, doctors reacted with fury when they came in for a 4.8 percent pay cut. Every year since, Congress has staved off the scheduled cuts. But each deferral just increased the size – and price tag – of the fix needed the next time.

A deal on the SGR could be part of a “grand bargain,” if congressional fiscal cliff negotiators decide to include it. To that point, Obama’s offer to Republicans included $25 billion to stop the scheduled cut. Congress could also pass separate legislation to stop the cuts. Some doctors say that if Medicare reimbursements are further reduced they may stop accepting Medicare patients.

Q: If negotiators do reach a deal, what could that mean for Medicare?

A: It depends on how large a role Medicare plays in a broader deal.  Some of the proposals include raising Medicare’s eligibility age to 67, asking wealthier Medicare beneficiaries to pay more for their coverage and paying Medicare providers less. All are complicated and many Democrats have said that they do not want to make changes that harm beneficiaries or shift costs from the government onto seniors.  Republicans are insisting that entitlement savings play a large role in any deficit reduction deal.

Q: How is Medicaid affected, either way?

A: Medicaid does not face any automatic cuts starting Jan. 1.  The Supreme Court’s ruling made the health law’s Medicaid expansion optional for states, so there’s concern that any reductions in federal Medicaid spending might make governors even more reluctant to expand the federal-state program.

Many Republicans, including GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., favor changing Medicaid into a block grant, where states are given a set amount of money and more freedom to decide who is covered and what benefits they would receive. But the block grant concept is a non-starter with Obama and Democrats.

Q: If no deal is reached by Jan. 1, what happens to federal funding for medical research?

A:  The National Institutes of Health would see a $2.5 billion reduction in 2013, which means that the agency would “have to halt or curtail scientific research,” according to the OMB analysis. Other agencies would see cuts, too. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would face cuts of $490 million, and the Food and Drug administration would see reductions of about $318 million.

Q:  If no deal is reached, what happens to health care for members of the military and veterans?

A: The TRICARE program for active members of the military system would also face an across-the-board 2 percent cut. The Veterans Affairs health system, however, is exempt from sequestration.

Alvin Tran contributed to this report.

This article was republished from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family FoundationKaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bill O’Reilly: What Happens in Vegas

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto

LAS VEGAS — This is a town that looks better at night. Millions of lights pierce the darkness creating a visual that is both energetic and trance-inducing. The multilayered lightshow is dazzling and unique in America.

But when the sun comes up, Las Vegas speaks directly to the recession. Half-completed buildings loom over the landscape like giant steel skeletons. Some developers ran out of money and simply walked away leaving huge, hulking abandoned structures to absorb the desert wind.

But just down Las Vegas Blvd. are the winners: lavish hotels that cater to one’s every need. This is a city that best defines the two Americas and our very competitive capitalistic system. If you want to understand the free marketplace, Las Vegas is an excellent classroom.

Millions of hardworking folks come here to have fun. In order to maximize the entertainment, you have to spend money. Whether you spend it on gambling, live shows or fine dining, it’s up to you. The money flow supports tens of thousands of service workers and, at a much higher level, the movers who run the tourist businesses. If you can’t make a decent living in Vegas, you are in major trouble. Responsible workers are sorely needed.

But still there is destitution on display. Addiction is the primary driver of that, although laziness is featured, as well. Some of the poor in this town simply want to play all the time. And they pay a price for that, as prosperity eludes them.

Some of the have-nots sit on sidewalks hoping for money from passersby. Sometimes, gamblers give the beggars casino chips. Panhandlers say the best time for them is after midnight when the winners emerge from the gambling dens. Redistribution is much easier when you’ve just run the table.

President Obama should spend some time in Vegas. Maybe then he would understand capitalism better. No matter how many handouts the panhandlers get, their circumstances rarely change. The money is mostly used to feed their compulsions.

On the other end, the rich 1 percenters hustling the gambling tables are trying to increase their affluence by taking chances. In the process, they are providing salaries for the hardworking men and women who keep the entertainment establishments running. Bottom line: Both the wealthy and the poor in Vegas are exercising their personal freedoms.

From observing the action in Vegas, Obama might finally realize that it’s freedom of choice that most often dictates who fails and who succeeds in the capitalistic system. In Vegas, no outcomes are guaranteed and no government can level the playing field. Prosperity or lack thereof is all about individual decision-making.

But the president would most likely never admit that, because it goes against his belief that government can impose a form of social justice by forcibly redistributing the wages of the successful.

For Barack Obama, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

Enhanced by Zemanta

George W. Bush: “Benevolent Spirit” Can Guide Debate

U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Photographer's Mate 2nd Thomas Coffelt

DALLAS — During his opening remarks Tuesday at a daylong conference on immigration and the economy, former President George W. Bush urged the nation’s leaders to debate immigration reform with compassion and kindness.

In a brief appearance at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Bush did not advocate for a specific solution. But his statements indicated he supports policies similar to those he championed during his presidency, when immigration reform was last debated in Congress.

“America can become a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time,” Bush said at the event, which was organized by the George W. Bush Institute and the Federal Reserve Bank. “As our nation debates the proper course of action on immigration reform, I hope we do so with a benevolent spirit and keep in mind the contributions of immigrants.”

Those contributions include “new skills and new ideas,” he said, adding that immigrants “fill a critical gap in our labor market.

“Not only do immigrants help build the economy, they invigorate our soul,” he said at the gathering of students, scholars and economists.

Bush did not take questions following his remarks. But his introduction appeared to set the tone for the panelists, whose focus was more on reform and its potential boon to the economy and less on law enforcement and border security.

Analysts said after last month’s general election that Republicans, including those who espoused hard-line views on illegal immigration, should recognize the growing voting power of the country’s minority population, including Hispanics who champion immigration reform, and find a solution.

Clint Bolick, a lawyer and the director of the Goldwater Institute‘s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, warned of what he said were poorly thought-out schemes by state legislatures to fix immigration within their own borders. If the trend persisted, he added, the problem would be too few immigrants to perform low-wage labor as opposed to too many.

“Alabama tried a nifty way” to address immigration with a disastrous result to the state’s GDP, he said, referring to the state’s recently passed bill that allows law officers to check immigration status. Portions of the bill are currently unenforceable and tied up in federal courts but the state’s agriculture economy suffered resounding labor losses after the bill was signed.

As far as immigrant youths, the focus of President Obama’s deferred action policies that grants legal status and a reprieve from deportation to certain younger undocumented immigrants, Bolick said the country needed to move more quickly than the DREAM Act. That legislation would provide a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented youths who meet certain guidelines. Bolick said the immigrants, who he said are American for all intents and purposes, should be given citizenship sooner than what the proposed legislation would allow.

Last week, outgoing U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, introduced the Achieve Act, which would create a new visa for undocumented youths who attend college or serve in the military to receive legal status and a work permit. It does not, however, allow for a pathway to citizenship.

At its conference last weekend United We Dream, an immigrants’ rights group whose affiliates include the University Leadership Initiative based at the University of Texas at Austin, reiterated its demand for Congress to pass the DREAM Act. The group also decided to push for reform beyond the DREAM Act.

“The DREAMers are leaders within their communities and their families.  They know firsthand the sacrifices their parents made to provide opportunities for their children,” Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director for the progressive America’s Voice Educational Fund, said in a prepared statement. “They are incredible spokespeople for their families, and will once again transform the immigration debate.”

According to a fact sheet released by the Bush Institute, immigrants accounted for more than half of the country’s labor-force growth from 2003 to 2012. Of the 8.4 million new workers, 4.4 million were immigrants. The center also said that in 2011, 11 percent of the country’s immigrants earned a graduate or professional degree, 1 percentage point higher than the country’s native-born residents.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/george-w-bushbenevolent-spirit-can-guide-debate/. Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hutchison Files Immigration Bill That Focuses on Minors

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Defense

Outgoing U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, introduced a bill Tuesday that would provide legal status for immigrants brought to the country illegally as minors.

The bill, called the ACHIEVE Act, is co-authored by U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona. It would create a new visa system affecting “young people who intend to pursue a technical or college degree, or serve in the U.S. military,” according to a statement on Hutchison’s website.

Hutchison, who will leave Washington next year after serving in the U.S. Senate since 1993, concedes that the legislation is not comprehensive immigration reform but says it is nonetheless a “step forward in addressing a time-sensitive issue.”

The bill is evidence that the Republican Party is becoming more focused on working toward a solution on immigration following this month’s general election, which analysts have said favored Democrats due, in part, to the GOP’s harsh stances on immigration. Hutchison made clear, however, that the proposal does not guarantee citizenship.

“Many young people in this country are here illegally through no fault of their own. Relegating a potentially productive portion of the population to the shadows is neither humane nor good economic or social policy,” the senators said in a joint statement. “Only individuals who have abided by our nation’s laws, while residing within its borders, would be eligible for continued legal status, and there is no automatic path to citizenship.”

The bill has similarities to the current “deferred action” policy put in place by President Obama this year, but it’s not clear how the proposal would work along with that policy.

Under the deferred action, immigrants who arrived in the country illegally before they were 16 and who were younger than 31 as of the June 15 announcement may be granted relief from deportation proceedings and a two-year work permit. They must have graduated or be enrolled in school, have earned a GED or have been honorably discharged from the military. They must have also lived in the country since June 15, 2007, and have never been convicted of a serious misdemeanor, three misdemeanors or a felony.

Under the Kyl-Hutchison proposal, applicants must have lived in the country for five years; entered the country before the age of 14; have not have committed a felony, more than one misdemeanor or a crime of moral turpitude; and must not have a final order of removal pending. They must also know English and have a working knowledge of the U.S. government, according to Hutchison’s website.

Approved applicants would receive a new W-1 visa, which would require them to check in with the Department of Homeland Security every six months and would not allow access to welfare or federal benefits, including student loans. They would then be eligible for subsequent visas that allow them to continue to work and eventually apply for a permanent nonimmigrant visa.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/hutchison-files-immigration-bill-minors/. Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bill O’Reilly: Crushing Ambition

The left-wing media went wild after the election when analysis showed that many poorer Americans supported President Obama and entitlements could have been a major reason why. Liberals always like to think of themselves as noble, and the thought that some vote-buying could have occurred is deeply offensive to them. Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves.

Americans earning less than $30,000 a year gave the president about 7 million more votes than Gov. Romney. All told, Obama defeated Romney by 3.5 million votes. The math is clear.

But what about motivation? How can you assign entitlements as a voting factor? Well, what else is there?

Were lower-income Americans voting to support the $16 trillion dollar debt? The 8 percent unemployment rate? The nearly $5,000-a-year decline in wages for working people?

No, many lower-income voters were supporting the expansion of means-tested entitlements like food stamps, Medicaid and welfare payments, along with Obamacare, where about 30 million Americans will have their health insurance paid for by other Americans.

When you have individuals in more than 100 million American households receiving some kind of federal subsidy outside of Medicare and Social Security, that will mean something at the ballot box.

Especially because Mitt Romney proposed to change all that.

But why is doling out so-called “means-tested entitlements” a bad thing? Isn’t it a sign of a humane society?

Financial safety nets are surely worthy. We can’t let the elderly and children suffer because they don’t have resources. But what’s happening in America is far more than simply expanding a needed safety net.

Twenty years ago, the feds spent 9 percent of the total budget on entitlements other than Medicare and Social Security. Now, the number is 16 percent. Liberals scream that it’s because of the bad economy. Not true.

Twenty years ago, unemployment among African-Americans was 14.3 percent. This year, it is 14.3 percent. In the Hispanic-American precincts, unemployment in 1992 was 11 percent; today, it’s 10 percent.

It is the liberal culture that is driving the entitlement mentality, and that is destructive to the country. The truth is that folks who get stuff are not likely to be as motivated as people who work for things. Freebies sap initiative.

We are living in a “Where’s mine?” age. “If at first you don’t succeed, then ask for things to be given to you.” A record amount of Americans are receiving food stamps, and more workers are on federal disability than ever before. The Democrat Party actively supports the entitlement expansion, and that absolutely helped Barack Obama get re-elected earlier this month.

If we continue down this road, however, say hello to Emperor Nero. Same thing happened in Ancient Rome. Look it up. The population became weak and unmotivated, and Roman power collapsed as individual ambition was crushed by selfishness and dependence on the state.

The question used to be, “Who’s your daddy?” Now, it’s, “Who’s your nanny?”

And we all know the answer.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Vice Turkey: Pardoned or Fried to a Golden and Delicious Crisp?

Former Vice President John Nance Garner famously described the vice presidency as “not worth a bucket of warm piss.” If Garner thought his vice presidency was bad, he should have tried being vice turkey.

Every year, a pardoned turkey-select is chosen at birth for official presidential pardoning at the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation. But did you know that a vice turkey also is chosen? He is put through the same rigorous training, preparing him for the Thanksgiving noise, lights and crowds if the pardoned turkey-select should die before the big day. But the vice turkey likely will never get to experience his 15 minutes of fame. And adding insult to injury, most Americans don’t even know the vice turkey exists, waiting in the wings to serve his country.

The vice turkey is an American public servant, but is he given a hero’s welcome? I should say not. It’s great to be the wingman and all, but no one knew the name of that guy who helped Tom Cruise get the chick in “Top Gun” until he showed up as Dr. Greene on “ER.” And the vice turkey isn’t likely to get a resurgence of his career starring across George Clooney any time soon. Even as the vice turkey’s mother brags about her son at the feather salon and feeding station, the other hens just stick their beaks up at her and cluck insults behind her back. What kind of turkey wants to be vice turkey when he grows up anyhow? At least being sold to Butterball is respectable!

As Thanksgiving grows near, the vice turkey grows weary of his life and title. It’s hard to hold up that patriotic red, white and blue head when you’re ignored by the country you love. Sure, the health insurance benefits are good, but the hours are fowl. And why should he have to endure this humiliation and overstimulation? He isn’t going to be the one who gets to stand in front of adoring crowds. The president won’t tickle his wattle.

The vice turkey contemplates telling the job to get stuffed. He’s seen “Chicken Run.” He knows how to fly the coop. Oh, yes, he considers running to Canada to become a draft dodger. But the vice turkey is a turkey of great moral character, and year after year, he decides to serve his country, either in the shadows or next to the cranberry sauce.

The day of the actual pardoning is anxiety-inducing for the vice turkey. There is both the hope and fear he will be called to the stage, and of course, there’s the risk he will be eaten. History shows that the vice turkey will leave Washington without being brined, baked or fried, but unlike the fate of the pardoned turkey, there is simply no guarantee. A 40-pound turkey has enough heart problems as is! With the added stress, it’s a wonder the vice turkey doesn’t kick the bucket (filled with the proverbial warm piss) right on the spot.

After Thanksgiving, the pardoned turkey and, feathers crossed, the vice turkey retire together to live out the rest of their days. But the belittling job of the vice turkey never is done. Whether the turkeys are sent to Disney to act as honorary grand marshal in the Thanksgiving Day parade or Mount Vernon to be part of the tour, it is still the pardoned turkey that gets to gobble up all the attention.

This year, we began to rectify the decades of damage done to the vice turkey, by not having the official title bestowed upon him until the day before the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation. The two selected turkeys were given the same upbringing and respect until a Facebook competition to collect the highest number of “likes” determined their fate. Cobbler may have gotten the honor of becoming the 2012 pardoned turkey, but Gobbler still got his 15 minutes of fame. It may be a paltry consolation for the wronged poultry, but it’s a start. And I believe we addressed this issue just in the nick of time. God forbid there be a repeat of Turkey-gate 2008, when President Bush had to pardon the vice turkey after the pardoned turkey-select fell mysteriously ill from food poisoning the night before.

If you ask me, the vice turkey did it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Way the GOP Can “Stop Being the Stupid Party”

Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore

If there is still a rule of social decorum that requires one to pause for a seemly period after a man’s death before courting his widow, Bobby Jindal just broke it.

In statements he made this week, Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana and current chair of the Republican Governors Association, repudiated Mitt Romney and made a bid to lead a new Republican party.

Romney, as everyone now knows, said in a conference call with his big donors that Obama won the election by giving “gifts” to “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

Jindal pounced.

“I absolutely reject that notion,” he said. “We have got to stop dividing the American voters … We need to continue to show how our policies can help every voter out there achieve the American Dream.”

Earlier in the week, Jindal said that Republicans have to “stop being the stupid party.”

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything. We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

The Republican Party has a chance right now to start moving in the direction Jindal wants. Obama met with Republican and Democratic leaders at the White House Friday to begin negotiating a deficit reduction package that Congress must pass by the end of the year to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

Obama wants to keep tax rates the same for 98 percent of Americans and increase the top marginal tax rate for the highest earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, where it was during the Clinton years.

If the Republicans want to start to shed the image of the rich man’s party, they should make sure the Obama tax hike passes.

A few days after the election, Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Fox News and shared the results of a survey that asked voters what groups the Republicans were most interested in helping. The answers looked like this:

REPUBLICANS MOST INTERESTED IN HELPING

—The Wealthy 50 percent

—Big Business 48 percent

—Hardworking Taxpayers 26 percent

—The Middle Class 23 percent

—Small Business 18 percent

—Special Interests 17 percent

—Families 16 percent

—The Poor 3 percent

Republicans will reinforce this image in an unforgettable way if they cling to a historically low tax rate for the rich when the deficit has never been higher and the rich have never been richer.

Bill Kristol, conservative commentator and editor of the Weekly Standard, put it this way: “Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republican principles?”

We will hear Republican hardliners stick to the argument that a tax hike on the rich will hurt everyone. But it’s easier to find evidence against that view than for it.

In 1993, the last time Congress voted for a personal income tax rate hike, Republicans called the bill “job-killing poison,” and no Republican voted for it. Following the tax hike — which affected only top earners — the country experienced the longest economic expansion in history with more than 22 million new jobs, higher incomes at all levels, the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years, the lowest poverty rate in 20 years and a steep drop in child poverty.

In September of this year, the Congressional Research Service published an economic analysis of the top tax rates since World War II, which includes the 91 percent top marginal tax rate in place in the 1940s and 1950s. The report found no clear correlation between reducing top tax rates and increased saving, investment or productivity growth.

In his farewell address in January of 1960, President Eisenhower (who once called tax cuts “fiscal recklessness … that would lead to a vast wasteland of debt and financial chaos”) warned the country against the “recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.”

The Republican Party came to see tax cuts as that miraculous solution. Today, however, it seems that a few Republicans may be willing to go along with the opinion that tax cuts can be good in some cases, and not so good in others. We’ll find out soon.

That would not be a small thing. It could be a big thing. It could be, perhaps, the beginning of a shift from ideology back to pragmatism.

Enhanced by Zemanta

After The Election: What Does the Health Law Mean for Me?

Photo courtesy of Michael McCloskey and iStockphoto

Now that President Barack Obama has won a second term, the Affordable Care Act is back on a fast track.

Some analysts argue that there could be modifications to reduce federal spending as part of a broader deficit deal; for now, this is just speculation. What is clear is that the law will have sweeping ramifications for consumers, state officials, employers and health care providers, including hospitals and doctors.

While some of the key features don’t kick in until 2014, the law has already altered the health care industry and established a number of consumer benefits.

Here’s a primer on parts of the law already up and running, what’s to come and ways that provisions could still be altered.

I don’t have health insurance. Under the law, will I have to buy it and what happens if I don’t?

Today, you are not required to have health insurance. But beginning in 2014, most people will have to have it or pay a fine. For individuals, the penalty would start at $95 a year, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016.

For families the penalty would be $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. The requirement to have coverage can be waived for several reasons, including financial hardship or religious beliefs.

Millions of additional people will qualify for Medicaid or federal subsidies to buy insurance under the law.

While some states, including most recently Alabama, Wyoming and Montana, have passed laws to block the requirement to carry health insurance, those provisions do not override federal law.

I get my health coverage at work and want to keep my current plan. Will I be able to do that? How will my plan be affected by the health law?

If you get insurance through your job, it is likely to stay that way. But, just as before the law was passed, your employer is not obligated to keep the current plan and may change premiums, deductibles, co-pays and network coverage.

You may have seen some law-related changes already. For example, most plans now ban lifetime coverage limits and include a guarantee that an adult child up to age 26 who can’t get health insurance at a job can stay on her parents’ health plan.

What other parts of the law are now in place?

You are likely to be eligible for preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs, such as breast cancer screenings and cholesterol tests.

Health plans can’t cancel your coverage once you get sick – a practice known as “rescission” – unless you committed fraud when you applied for coverage.

Children with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. This will apply to adults in 2014.

Insurers will have to provide rebates to consumers if they spend less than 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care.

Some existing plans, if they haven’t changed significantly since passage of the law, do not have to abide by certain parts of the law. For example, these “grandfathered” planscan still charge beneficiaries part of the cost of preventive services.

If you’re currently in one of these plans, and your employer makes significant changes, such as raising your out-of-pocket costs, the plan would then have to abide by all aspects of the health law.

I want health insurance but I can’t afford it. What will I do?

Depending on your income, you might be eligible for Medicaid. Currently, in most states nonelderly adults without minor children don’t qualify for Medicaid. But beginning in 2014, the federal government is offering to pay the cost of an expansion in the programs so that anyone with an income at or lower than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, (which based on current guidelines would be $14,856 for an individual or $30,656 for a family of four) will be eligible for Medicaid.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in June that states cannot be forced to make that change. Republican governors in several states have said that they will refuse the expansion, though that may change now that Obama has been re-elected.

What if I make too much money for Medicaid but still can’t afford to buy insurance?

You might be eligible for government subsidies to help you pay for private insurance sold in the state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014. Exchanges will sell insurance plans to individuals and small businesses.

These premium subsidies will be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,856 to $44,680 for individuals and $30,656 to $92,200 for a family of four (based on current guidelines).

Will it be easier for me to get coverage even if I have health problems?

Insurers will be barred from rejecting applicants based on health status once the exchanges are operating in 2014.

I own a small business. Will I have to buy health insurance for my workers?

No employer is required to provide insurance. But starting in 2014, businesses with 50 or more employees that don’t provide health care coverage and have at least one full-time worker who receives subsidized coverage in the health insurance exchange will have to pay a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee. The firm’s first 30 workers would be excluded from the fee.

However, firms with  50 or fewer people won’t face any penalties.

In addition, if you own a small business, the health law offers a tax credit to help cover the cost. Employers with 25 or fewer full-time workers who earn an average yearly salary of $50,000 or less today can get tax credits of up 35 percent of the cost of premiums. The credit increases to 50 percent in 2014.

I’m over 65. How does the legislation affect seniors?

The law is narrowing a gap in the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan known as the “doughnut hole.” That’s when seniors who have paid a certain initial amount in prescription costs have to pay for all of their drug costs until they spend a total of $4,700 for the year. Then the plan coverage begins again.

That coverage gap will be closed entirely by 2020. Seniors will still be responsible for 25 percent of their prescription drug costs. So far, 5.6 million seniors have saved $4.8 billion on prescription drugs, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The law also expanded Medicare’s coverage of preventive services, such as screenings for colon, prostate and breast cancer, which are now free to beneficiaries. Medicare will also pay for an annual wellness visit to the doctor. HHS reports that during the first nine months of 2012, more than 20.7 million Medicare beneficiaries have received preventive services at no cost.

The health law reduced the federal government’s payments to Medicare Advantage plans, run by private insurers as an alternative to the traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage costs more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare. Critics of those payment cuts say that could mean the private plans may not offer many extra benefits, such as free eyeglasses, hearing aids and gym memberships, that they now provide.

Will I have to pay more for my health care because of the law?

No one knows for sure. Even supporters of the law acknowledge its steps to control health costs, such as incentives to coordinate care better, may take a while to show significant savings. Opponents say the law’s additional coverage requirements will make health insurance more expensive for individuals and for the government.

That said, there are some new taxes and fees. For example, starting in 2013, individuals with earnings above $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000 will paya Medicare payroll tax of 2.35 percent, up from the current 1.45 percent, on income over those thresholds. In addition, higher-income people will face a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income, such as dividends and interest.

Starting in 2018, the law also will impose a 40 percent excise tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage (excluding dental and vision) that exceeds $10,200 a year and $27,500 for families. The tax has been dubbed a “Cadillac” tax because it hits the most generous plans.

In addition, the law also imposes taxes and fees on several major health industries. Beginning in 2013, medical device manufacturers and importers must pay a 2.3 percent tax on the sale of any taxable medical device to raise $29 billion over 10 years. An annual fee for health insurers is expected to raise more than $100 billion over 10 years, while a fee for brand name drugs will bring in another $34 billion.

Those fees will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher premiums.

Has the law hit some bumps in the road?

Yes. For example, the law created high-risk insurance pools to help people purchase health insurance. But enrollment in the pools has been less than expected. As of Aug. 31, 86,072 people had signed up for the high-risk pools, but the program, which began in June 2010, was initially expected to enroll between 200,000 and  400,000 people. The cost and the requirements have been difficult for some to meet.

Applicants must be uninsured for six months because of a pre-existing medical condition before they can join a pool. And because participants are sicker than the general population, the premiums are higher.

Enrollment has increased since the summer, after the premiums were lowered in some states by as much as 40 percent and some states stepped up advertising.

A long-term care provision of the law is dead for now. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program (CLASS Act) was designed for people to buy federally guaranteed insurance that would have helped consumers eventually cover some long-term-care costs. But last fall, federal officials effectively suspended the program even before it was to begin, saying they could not find a way to make it work financially.

Are there more changes ahead for the law?

Some observers think there could be pressure in Congress to make some changes to the law as a larger package to reduce the deficit. Among those options is scaling back the subsidies that help low-income Americans buy health insurance coverage. The amount of the subsidies, and possibly the Medicaid expansion as well, could be reduced.

It’s also possible that some of the taxes on the health care industry, which help pay for the new benefits in the health law, could be rolled back. For example, legislation to repeal the tax on medical device manufacturers passed the House with support from 37 Democrats (it is not expected to receive Senate consideration this year). Nine House Democrats are co-sponsoring legislation to repeal the law’s annual fee on health insurers.

Meanwhile, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), one of the most contentious provisions of the health law, is also under continued attack by lawmakers. IPAB is a 15-member panel charged with making recommendations to reduce Medicare spending if the amount the government spends grows beyond a target rate. If Congress chooses not to accept the recommendations, lawmakers must pass alternative cuts of the same size.

Some Republicans argue that the board amounts to health care rationing and some Democrats have said that they think the panel would transfer power that belongs on Capitol Hill to the executive branch. In March, the House voted to repeal IPAB.

Jenny Gold co-authored this story.

This article was republished from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family FoundationKaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Avoiding The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Likely Means Changes In Medicare

Photo courtesy of iStockphoto

Expectations are high.  President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, say they want to avert the fiscal cliff, that toxic mix of expiring tax breaks and automatic spending reductions set to begin in January.  If Republicans make concessions on taxes, Democrats and the president say, they’ll move on entitlements, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as part of a larger deal to reduce the federal deficit.

But we’ve been here before.  Bipartisan coalitions have produced numerous ideas on how to change entitlements and taxes, but the recommendations go nowhere.

“Definitely the term ‘entitlement reform,’ as I always say, rolls off the tongue so easily,” said G. William Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former staff director of the Senate Budget Committee and a top budget aide to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. “It’s hard to get any savings in [Medicare and Medicaid] unless we’re talking about a reduction in benefits or a reduction in reimbursement rates.”

“When you get beyond the rhetoric, it’s going to be very difficult,” he said.

Lawmakers are wrestling with finding a balance between asking beneficiaries to pay more for Medicare services and reducing payments to Medicare providers, such as hospitals and nursing homes. Those providers, who are already expecting their Medicare payments to grow at a slower rate over the next decade as part of the 2010 health law, likely would fight additional cuts.  And beneficiaries, many who are on fixed incomes, will not want to pay more for Medicare services.

Either decision could have sweeping effects on the program. “You don’t just get to turn a dial and have it not resonate, We need to think about our risk pool, we need to think about how the program works,” said a Democratic staffer on the Senate Finance Committee.

Experts maintain that changes in entitlements are bound to be part of any “grand bargain” to reduce the deficit. “It is hard to imagine a deal without Medicare savings,” said Tricia Neuman, director of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicare Policy (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Medicaid is also expected to be a part of the mix, but to a lesser extent, analysts say. The Supreme Court’s ruling made the health law’s Medicaid expansion optional for states, so there’s concern that any additional reductions in federal Medicaid spending might make governors even more reluctant to expand the federal-state program. And as the nation continues to recover from the recession, some Democrats are reluctant to cut the program, which serves more than 60 million low-income Americans.

Here’s a look at some of the Medicare changes that could be in the mix.

CAP FEDERAL HEALTH CARE SPENDING: This proposal was advanced by Obama’s bipartisan commission chaired by former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson. The panel proposed a cap on federal health care spending that, starting in 2020, would require the growth in per capita spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs not exceed the increase in gross domestic product plus one percent.

If spending grew beyond that target, the president would have to submit and Congress would have to consider ways to lower spending, such as creating a “premium support” system for Medicare.

Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP’s presidential nominee, and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.,  backed a version of “premium support” that would have provided a fixed amount of money for each beneficiary to purchase a private health insurance plan or to buy traditional Medicare.  But Obama promised to “never turn Medicare into a voucher”

The 2010 health law already includes a mechanism to keep Medicare’s overall spending in line. It establishes a 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board that is charged with making recommendations if the amount the government spends on Medicare grows beyond a target rate. Congress must pass alternative cuts of the same size or the panel’s recommendations become law. A global cap coming out of the ongoing deficit negotiations, however, might not have the same built-in beneficiary protections as IPAB, which cannot recommend changes in benefits, eligibility or Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing.

While setting a global cap may appear to be a get-tough measure, it could ultimately end up being a strategy to kick the difficult decisions on spending to future years. Much depends on how a cap is designed. For example, would the cap require that savings be achieved each year or over a period of years? Would it force lawmakers to take action if spending went beyond a certain point, or simply encourage further action?

In addition, spending limits do not guarantee savings, as evidenced by Congress’ experience with Medicare doctor payments. Medicare’s “sustainable growth rate” formula, established in the 1997 deficit reduction law, sets physician payment rates through a formula based on economic growth. But every year since 2002, Congress has staved off scheduled cuts.

Each deferral increased the size – and price tag – of the fix needed the next time. The current “doc fix” expires Dec. 31 and unless Congress takes steps to stop it again, physicians who accept Medicare patients will see their payments reduced 27 percent.

REDUCE PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS: Hospitals, physicians and other health care providers – many who are now facing payment cuts either in the 2010 health care law or from the upcoming “sequestration” reductions (or both) – may take another hit in a deficit deal. Among the options sometimes mentioned are limiting the amount of “bad debt” that hospitals and other providers can write off their taxes,  reducing federal funding for medical education and requiring more prior authorization for some medical services, such as imaging, to help reduce unnecessary care. Lawmakers looking for political cover from angry providers could cite the many deficit-reduction proposals that have advanced provider cuts: Obama’s 2011 deficit reduction proposal, the Simpson-Bowles plan and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, which advises Congress on Medicare payment policy.

RAISING MEDICARE’S ELIGIBILITY AGE: The age for full Social Security benefits will reach 67 in 2027 and some analysts argue that it makes sense to slowly raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. Obama backed increasing the Medicare eligibility age as part of his negotiations last year with Boehner, according to documents obtained by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. According to a March 2011 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, gradually increasing the Medicare eligibility age would save the federal government $125 billion over the next decade.

Proponents say that with implementation of the health law moving forward, people under 67 without job-related insurance could buy coverage — even if they are sick — on the new exchanges being set up under the health law and may qualify for subsidies to help. Or, if they are lower income, they might be eligible for Medicaid.

Still, this could be a tough sell to Democrats. In a speech last month, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, said, “There’s a lot of opposition to it.”

“MORE SKIN IN THE GAME”: Members of both political parties and some health care analysts have long thought that spending could be slowed if patients, including Medicare beneficiaries, put up more of their own money for health services. Some have suggested raising seniors’ share of the Medicare Part B premium (which covers doctor visits and other outpatient services) from 25 percent to 35 percent and imposing co-payments for home health services or the first 20 days of a skilled nursing facility stay.

The home health co-payment would save $40 billion over the next decade for the federal government; the skilled nursing co-pay would save $21.3 billion, according  to the CBO’s 2011 estimates. Increasing the beneficiary’s share of Part B would save $241 billion over 10 years.

Raising beneficiaries’ share of Part B premiums would bring the program closer to its original 50-50 split between the federal government and beneficiaries, proponents say. And they add that greater cost-sharing for services would discourage overuse of care. But opponents say that beneficiaries already spend a big chunk of their incomes on medical care and shouldn’t be asked to contribute more.

Higher income Medicare beneficiaries — $85,000 and above for individuals, $170,000 for couples –  now pay a greater share of their Part B premiums and could be asked to do more as part of a larger budget deal.

CHANGING MEDICARE’S DEDUCTIBLE AND MEDIGAP COVERAGE: In addition to paying premiums for Part B, Medicare beneficiaries also have separate deductibles for their hospital care (Part A) and for Part B. Nearly one in five beneficiaries in Medicare’s fee-for-service program have supplemental insurance known as Medigap coverage to help with those costs and others get such coverage from their Medicare Advantage plans, retiree health plans or other sources.

Some proposals, including one advanced by the Bowles-Simpson panel, have suggested combining the Part A and B deductibles into one $550 yearly deductible. That could reduce beneficiaries’ costs for hospital care but be more expensive for seniors who mostly use Part B. In addition, some proposals suggest a 10 to 20 percent co-payment for all services until beneficiaries reach a catastrophic limit of $7,500. Others argue for making that $550 deductible ineligible for Medigap coverage so that beneficiaries are responsible for covering the cost of those initial services.

Instituting the change in deductibles, co-pays and Medigap rules would save about $93 billion over the next decade, CBO estimates. Medicare would save money, but not just because beneficiaries were putting up more of their own. If Medigap plans were less generous, analysts believe beneficiaries would be more careful about spending and that could help lower Medicare costs. Expect insurers that sell Medigap policies – especially those that offer first-dollar coverage – to balk.

This article was republished from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family FoundationKaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Last Week, In Case You Missed It: November 11, 2012

Well, this certainly was a big week, what with the presidential election and all. There was all the last minute election build-up, election night itself with all of the projection drama, and of course, the post-election analysis. I also heard a story on NPR this afternoon previewing the 2016 presidential election candidates. Oh, joy.

While President Obama, Texas Republicans, and the GLBT and 420 communities all had good nights, the biggest winner this week has to be Nate Silver, who writes the celebrated and derided FiveThirtyEight blog in the New York Times. Silver correctly predicted the presidential outcomes in all 50 states, based upon the available polling data, historical voting information, and his own secret sauce. It was an improvement over 2008, when he correctly predicted only 49 of 50 states. As someone wrote this week, “If Nate Silver predicts there’s a 90% chance that it will be raining marshmallows tomorrow, I’m running outside with a cup of hot chocolate.” Nate’s new book, The Signal and the Noise, is moving up the New York Times Bestsellers List, and is also #1 on my Christmas wish list.

In the days leading up to this year’s election, we looked at how we vote for judges in Texas (i.e. Republican: good, anything else: bad). Even controversial judges like Sharon Keller have nothing to fear right now, so long as they have the (R) next to their name. We had a pretty good idea that Ted Cruz would cruise to a win in the Texas Senate race against Paul Sadler, but Tom Rosshirt thought the the GOP nationwide would probably have to make some policy adjustments should Mitt Romney lose (he did, and they will).

We looked at seven things that could go wrong during the election. One definitely came true: Florida was still counting ballots on Saturday. I’m thinking Florida should conduct voting for the 2016 election next week, just to ensure they’ll have everything counted in time. Finally, we all know that the election would have a tremendous effect on healthcare moving forward, and we provided a list of the specifics. We also presented seven factors that will continue to drive up the cost of health care. Number two: we’re growing older, sicker and fatter. Don’t matter who is elected president – that one is unlikely to change soon.

After the election, we pointed out that even though President Obama gets four more years in the White House, much of health care reform still depends upon the actions of states like Texas. Besides health care reform measures, Texas legislators have a lot to tackle in the upcoming legislative session. One thing that is unlikely to gain much attention in Austin: legalizing marijuana, even if it were a potential new source of revenue for the state.

As we mentioned before, Texas Republicans had a good election day, as expected. Of course, Ted Cruz won his U.S. Senate race, but Republicans up and down the ballot easily won their races. In Montgomery County, they often ran unopposed, as few Democrats want to waste the time, money, and energy on an highly unlikely chance at winning an election.

Our post-election analysis include Bill O’Reilly’s personal note to President Obama. Tom Rosshirt watches the election night speeches, and has some suggestions for what they might have added. For President Obama, he suggested:

“I want to say a few words right now — not to the people here in this room or to my campaign team here in Chicago or to my supporters across the country. I want to speak instead to the millions of Americans who voted for Gov. Romney and who are disappointed, even discouraged, to see me at this podium tonight in front of happy supporters — if you can even bear to watch.

“You hoped to see at this hour on election night the smiling faces of Gov. Romney and his team, and many of you believe that our chances for building a better country have been lost — at least for now.

“Campaigns are long, difficult, passionate quests. They fire the energy and idealism of a wide range of people and then leave many good and proud citizens discouraged for the future. In a close election, the results can leave nearly half the nation dispirited. In a large nation such as ours, that means nearly 60 million people. We cannot ultimately have a strong nation if 60 million vibrant, involved citizens feel discouraged or disenfranchised.

“I want to recognize your wishes, your hard work, your love of country and your doubts about me. I want to acknowledge your principles and your ideals. I promise you tonight that I will listen to you and to the representatives you have sent today to Washington with the deepest respect. I will do all I can within the constraints of my duties to answer your needs and meet your concerns for our country.

“I know that I am not the president that you wanted, but I am determined to be a better president than you expected.”

Obviously, Tom Rosshirt used to be a speechwriter. Peter Funt also took in the speeches, but worries that well just end up with the status quo for the next four years.

The election may be over, but we still have a whole lot of troops in Afghanistan. The national discussion about those troops will probably drop off (better to focus on David Petraeus’ domestic issues). That’s why we feature stories about the unknown soldiers in Oak Ridge Now. President Obama said today in his Veterans Day remarks,

“On behalf of the American people, I say to you that the memory of your loved one carries on not just in your hearts, but in ours as well.  And I assure you that their sacrifice will never be forgotten,” he said. “For it is in that sacrifice that we see the enduring spirit of America.  Since even before our founding, we have been blessed with an unbroken chain of patriots who have always come forward to serve.”

We did carry some non-election news this week – it comes as no surprise that Texas power rates are probably going to rise. Of course, no one can venture a guess as to how much. I’m not optimistic, though, and I just locked in a two-year contract to keep my rate at the house steady.

And for those of you who think President Obama might be soft on crime, the President has granted clemency at a lower rate than any modern president. In the past four years he has pardoned 22 individuals, while declining 1,019 requests, for roughly a 1 in 50 rate. Compare that to George W. Bush (1 in 33), Bill Clinton (1 in 8), George H.W. Bush (1 in 16), and Ronald Reagan (1 in 3).

The cleanup of Hurricane Sandy (or Superstorm Sandy, depending on your news source of choice) is still ongoing, creating much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. Two weeks without power? Yeah, been there, done that. Personally, I’d rather have no heat in New York than no air conditioning in Texas, but that’s just me. So did global warming make the storm worse? We take a look at the scientific reasoning behind that. John Stossel complains about FEMA’s involvement in the whole mess, preferring to leave the cleanup to the private insurance folks. And Bill O’Reilly agrees, saying, “Life is hard, and then you die. But while you’re alive, you’ll be far better off if you forget about the big-government nonsense, deemphasize the machines and begin incorporating the discipline of self-reliance into your life.” Truth.

Enough of the national and Texas news already. On the local level, we recapped the season-ending War Eagle loss to the Highlanders. Football season is over, and we’re all going to miss it. We also took a look back at the bizarre Oak Ridge – Lufkin game that was called less than a minute into the second quarter due to an ill-timed storm. There’s no way, no way they could have made any other decision.

I would hope that most folks know by now that the War Eagle Marching Band will be performing in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in less than two weeks. They are also raising funds to benefit the victims of Superstorm Sandy. We are already proud of them. This is just icing on the cake.

Our regular feature included Kurt Loder reviewing Skyfall, the new James Bond flick, and Man With the Iron Fists, the Chinese Kung Fu homage from RZA. In Fashion, Sharon Mosley encourage ladies to forget the little black dress this holiday season, and dress like the women from Downtown Abbey. Really. And Mark Maynard takes a look at the new EyeSight driver assist feature in the 2013 Subaru Legacy. The package integrates adaptive cruise control, pre-collision braking and lane-departure and sway control warnings. Very cool.

Finally, we brought a little bit of the funny to you this week. Katiedid Langrock got to take her new baby trick-or-treating this year and Nick Thomas asks (and answers) the classic question: Why did the chicken cross the road? Among my favorites:

Dr. Phil: The issue is not why the chicken is crossing, by why we’re enabling it to engage in risky activities.

The United Nations: We will send a team of poultry inspectors to the road site in question and determine if a crossing is viable.  Then we will form a committee to determine if the chicken crossing should be internationally sanctioned. This may take 2 or 3 years at which time we will make an unenforceable recommendation.

All that and our terrific editorial cartoons, last week in Oak Ridge Now.

Instant Weekly Roundup - Free WordPress Plugin
Enhanced by Zemanta