Category Archives: Uninsured
Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandums: A Civics Lesson
Before the informative article below , I have two announcements!
(1) My blog has been “in publication” for over eight (8) years, this September 2020. Yay! I truly hope that my articles have been educational for the thousands of readers of my blog. Thank you to everyone who follows my blog. And…
(2) Knicole Emanuel and her legal team have moved law firms!!! We are now at PractUS, LLP. See the video interview of John Lively, who started my new law firm: here. It’s a pretty cool concept.
Click here: For my new bio and contact information.
Ok – Back to the informative news about the most recent Executive Orders…
My co-panelist on RACMonitor, Matthew Albright, gave a fascinating and informative summary on the recent, flurry of Executive Orders, and, he says, expect many more to come in the near future. He presented the following article on RACMonitor Monitor Monday, August 10, 2020. I found his article important enough to be shared on my blog. Enjoy!!
By Matthew Albright
Original story posted on: August 12, 2020
Presidential Executive Order No. 1 was issued on Oct. 20, 1862 by President Lincoln; it established a wartime court in Louisiana. The most famous executive order was also issued by Lincoln a few years later – the Emancipation Proclamation.
Executive orders are derived from the Constitution, which gives the president the authority to determine how to carry out the laws passed by Congress. The trick here is that executive orders can’t make new laws; they can only establish new – and perhaps creative – approaches to implementing existing laws.
President Trump has signed 18 executive orders and presidential memorandums in the past seven days. That sample of orders and memos are a good illustration of the authority – and the constraints – of presidential powers.
An executive order and a presidential memorandum are basically the same thing; the difference is that a memorandum doesn’t have to cite the specific law passed by Congress that the president is implementing, and a memorandum isn’t published in the Federal Register. In other words, an executive order says “this is what the President is going to do,” and a memorandum says “the President is going to do this too, but it shouldn’t be taken as seriously.”
Executive orders and memorandums often give instructions to federal agencies on what elements of a broader law they should focus on. One good example of this is the executive order signed a week ago by President Trump that provides new support and access to healthcare for rural communities. In that executive order, the President cited the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as the broad law he was using to improve access to rural communities.
Executive orders also often illustrate the limits of presidential authority, a good example being the series of executive orders and memorandums that the president signed this past Saturday, intended to provide Americans financial relief during the pandemic.
One of the memorandums signed on Saturday delayed the due date for employers to submit payroll taxes. The idea was that companies would in turn decide to stop taking those taxes out of employees’ paychecks, at least until December.
By looking at the language in the memorandum and seeing what it does not try to do, we can learn a lot about presidential limits.
The memorandum does not give employers or employees a tax break. That power rests unquestionably with Congress. The order only delays when the taxes will be collected. Like the grim reaper, the tax man will come to your door someday, even if you can delay when that “someday” is.
Also, the tax delay is only for employers, and – again, another illustration of the limits of presidential power – it doesn’t tell employers how they should manage this extra time they have to pay the tax. That is, companies could decide to continue to take taxes out of people’s paychecks, knowing that the taxes will still have to be paid someday.
Another memorandum that the president signed on Saturday concerned unemployment benefits. That order illustrates the division in powers between the federal Executive Branch and the authority of the states.
The memorandum provides an extra $400 in unemployment benefits, but in order for it to work, the states would have to put up one-fourth of the money. The memorandum doesn’t require states to put up the money; it “calls on” them to do it, because the President, unless authorized by Congress, can’t make states pay for something they don’t want.
Executive orders and memorandums are reflective of my current position as the father of two pre-teen girls. I can declare the direction the household should go, I can “call on them” to play less Fortnite and eat more fruit, but my orders and their subsequent implementation often just serve to illustrate the limits – both perceived and real –of my paternal power.
Programming Note: Matthew Albright is a permanent panelist on Monitor Mondays (with me:) ). Listen to his legislative update sponsored by Zelis, Mondays at 10 a.m. EST.
Fifth Circuit Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional but Leaves ACA’s Fate Uncertain
Extra, extra, read all about it: Breaking News!
In a 2-1 decision issued December 18, a Fifth Circuit panel held that the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional after Congress zeroed out the penalty in tax reform legislation.
Although the ruling was a victory for the 18 Republican-led states that initiated the challenge to the ACA, the appeals court side-stepped the critical issue of severability—i.e., whether other parts of the sprawling health care law could stand without the mandate—remanding to the district court for further proceedings.
In December 2018, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that no part of the ACA could stand after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) essentially eliminated the ACA’s “shared responsibility payment” for failing to comply with the mandate to buy insurance. The judgment was stayed pending appeal.
As a practical matter, the panel decision maintains the status quo and prolongs the litigation, likely leaving a final resolution of the ACA’s fate until after the 2020 elections.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who headed the coalition of mostly Democratic-led states that intervened to defend the law, said California “will move swiftly to challenge this decision.”
“For now, the President got the gift he wanted—uncertainty in the healthcare system and a pathway to repeal—so that the healthcare that seniors, workers and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them,” Becerra said in a statement.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the panel’s decision, saying the opinion recognized “that the only reason the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in 2012 was Congress’ taxing power, and without the individual mandate’s penalty, that justification crumbled.”
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, who President George W. Bush appointed to the Fifth Circuit, wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Kurt D. Englehardt, an appointee of President Donald Trump. The third panel member, Judge Carolyn Dineen King, was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, dissented.
The appeals court first concluded that the individual plaintiffs, the 18 plaintiff states, and the intervening states all had standing, an issue that the parties debated during oral arguments in July.
On the merits, the majority held once Congress zeroed out the shared responsibility payment, the individual mandate could no longer be upheld as a tax as it was under the Supreme Court’s decision in Nat’l Fed. of Independent Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).
After finding the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the majority declined to resolve whether, or how much, of the ACA could stand on its own.
Instead, the appeals court remanded to the district court to determine “with more precision what provisions of the post-2017 ACA are indeed inseverable from the individual mandate.” The appeals court also told the lower court to consider the federal government’s “newly-suggested relief of enjoining the enforcement only of those provisions that injure the plaintiffs or declaring the Act unconstitutional only as to the plaintiff states and the two individual plaintiffs.”
The complexity of the ACA statutory scheme, which includes provisions regulating insurance, amending Medicare, funding preventative health care programs, enacting antifraud requirements, and establishing or expanding drug regulations, requires “a careful, granular approach” for determining severability, which the majority was not satisfied O’Connor had done.
In the majority’s view, O’Connor’s decision was incomplete because it didn’t sufficiently address the intent of the 2017 Congress in zeroing out the penalty in the TCJA. Nor did O’Connor parse “through the over 900 pages of the post-2017 ACA, explaining how particular segments are inextricably linked to the individual mandate.”
The appeals court therefore remanded with instructions for the district court “to employ a finer-toothed comb . . . and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate.”
In her dissent, Judge King argued that by refusing to address severability, which in her view was plain given that Congress in 2017 removed the individual mandate’s enforcement mechanism while leaving the remaining provisions of the ACA intact, the majority “unnecessarily prolong[s] this litigation and the concomitant uncertainty over the future of the healthcare sector.”
King said she would vacate the district court’s order because none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the coverage requirement, would conclude that the coverage requirement is constitutional without the enforcement mechanism, and would find, in any event, the provision “entirely severable” from the remainder of the ACA.
Texas v. United States, No. 19-10011 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019).
Article from American Health Lawyers Association.
Work Requirements for Medicaid?
Under the Trump Administration, some Republican governors may look to move their Medicaid programs in a more conservative direction. In his latest column for Axios, Drew Altman discusses the arguments about Medicaid “work requirements” and why few people are likely to be affected by them in practice.
Key Medicaid Questions Post-Election
Disclosure: This is the opinion/facts from the Kaiser Family Foundation, not me. But I found this interesting. My opinion will be forthcoming.
Kaiser Family Foundation article:
Medicaid covers about 73 million people nationwide. Jointly financed by the federal and state governments, states have substantial flexibility to administer the program under existing law. Medicaid provides health insurance for low-income children and adults, financing for the safety net, and is the largest payer for long-term care services in the community and nursing homes for seniors and people with disabilities. President-elect Trump supports repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a Medicaid block grant. The GOP plan would allow states to choose between block grant and a per capita cap financing for Medicaid. The new Administration could also make changes to Medicaid without new legislation.
1. HOW WOULD ACA REPEAL AFFECT MEDICAID?
A repeal of the ACA’s coverage expansion provisions would remove the new eligibility pathway created for adults, increase the number of uninsured and reduce the amount of federal Medicaid funds available to states. The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling on the ACA effectively made the Medicaid expansion optional for states. As of November 2016, 32 states (including the District of Columbia) are implementing the expansion. The full implications of repeal will depend on whether the ACA is repealed in whole or in part, whether there is an alternative to the ACA put in place and what other simultaneous changes to Medicaid occur. However, examining the effects of the ACA on Medicaid provide insight into what might be at stake under a repeal.
What happened to coverage? The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility to nearly all non-elderly adults with income at or below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) – about $16,396 per year for an individual in 2016. Since summer of 2013, just before implementation of the ACA expansions, through August 2016 about 16 million people have been added to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. While not all of this increase is due to those made newly eligible under the ACA, expansion states account for a much greater share of growth. States that expanded Medicaid have had large gains in coverage, although ACA related enrollment has tapered. From 2013 to 2016 the rate of uninsured non-elderly adults fell by 9.2% in expansion states compared to 6% in non-expansion states.
What happened to financing? The law provided for 100% federal funding of the expansion through 2016, declining gradually to 90% in 2020 and beyond. Expansion states have experienced large increases in federal dollars for Medicaid and have claimed $79 billion in federal dollars for the new expansion group from January 2014 through June 2015. Studies also show that states expanding Medicaid under the ACA have realized net fiscal gains despite Medicaid enrollment growth initially exceeding projections in many states.
What other Medicaid provisions were in the ACA? The ACA required states to implement major transformations to modernize and streamline eligibility and enrollment processes and systems. The ACA also included an array of new opportunities related to delivery system reforms for complex populations, those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and new options to expand community-based long-term care services.
2. WHAT WOULD CHANGES IN THE FINANCING STRUCTURE MEAN FOR MEDICAID?
A Medicaid block grant or per capita cap policy would fundamentally change the current structure of the program. These policies are typically designed to reduce federal spending and fix rates of growth to make federal spending more predictable, but could eliminate the guarantee of coverage for all who are eligible and the guarantee to states for matching funds. States would gain additional flexibility to administer their programs but reduced federal funding could shift costs and risk to beneficiaries, states, and providers.
How would it work? Block grants or per capita caps could be structured in multiple ways. Key policy decisions would determine levels of federal financing as well as federal and state requirements around eligibility, benefits, state matching requirements, and beneficiary protections. Previous block grant proposals have determined a base year financing amount for each state and then specified a fixed rate of growth for federal spending. Under a Medicaid per capita cap, the federal government would set a limit on how much to reimburse states per enrollee. Payments to states would be based on per enrollee spending multiplied by enrollees. Spending under per capita cap proposals fluctuate based on changes in enrollment, but would not account for changes in the costs per enrollee beyond the growth limit. To achieve federal savings, the per capita growth amounts would be set below the projected rates of growth under current law.
What are the key policy questions? Key questions in designing these proposals include: what new flexibility would be granted to states, what federal requirements would remain in place, what requirements would be in place for state matching funds, what is the base year and growth rates, and how would a potential repeal of the ACA work with a block grant proposal? Given the lack of recent administrative data, setting a base year could be challenging. These financing designs could lock in historic spending patterns and variation in Medicaid spending across states, resulting in states deemed “winners” or “losers.”
What are the implications? Capping and reducing federal financing for Medicaid could have implications for beneficiaries, states, and providers including: declines in Medicaid coverage or new financial barriers to care; limited funding for children (the majority of Medicaid enrollees) as well as the elderly and those with disabilities (populations that represent the majority of Medicaid spending); reduced funding for nursing homes and community-based long-term care (Medicaid is the largest payer of these services); reductions in federal revenues to states and Medicaid revenues for safety-net providers. A block grant would not adjust to increased coverage needs during a recession. Block grants or per capita caps would not adjust to changes in health care or drug costs or emergencies. Recently Medicaid costs have increased due to high cost specialty drugs and Medicaid has been used to help combat the growing opioid crisis.
3. HOW COULD MEDICAID BE CHANGED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS?
The Administration could make changes to Medicaid without changes in legislation.
How can changes be made through guidance? A new administration can reinterpret existing laws through new regulations and new sub-regulatory guidance. While there are rules that govern how to change regulations, a new administration has more flexibility to issue or amend sub-regulatory guidance, such as state Medicaid director letters. Rules promulgated by the Obama administration could be rolled back or changed.
How can changes be made through waivers? Throughout the history of the Medicaid program, Section 1115 waivers have provided states an avenue to test and implement demonstrations that, in the view of the Health and Human Services Secretary, advance program objectives but do not meet federal program rules. Longstanding federal policy has required waivers to be budget neutral for the federal government.
What kind of waivers may be considered? Seven states are using waivers to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion, including Indiana. The Indiana waiver, implemented under then Governor Pence, includes provisions to impose: premiums on most Medicaid beneficiaries; a coverage lock-out period for individuals with incomes above the poverty level who fail to pay premiums; health savings accounts; and healthy behavior incentives. The Obama administration has not approved waivers that would require work as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. It also has denied Ohio’s waiver request to impose premiums regardless of income and exclude individuals from coverage until all arrears are paid on the basis that this would restrict or undermine coverage from existing levels. Many other states are using waivers to implement payment and delivery system reforms. The incoming administration could decide whether or not to renew existing waivers and can approve a new set of waivers to promote its own program goals.
Haven’t Fixed Medicaid Yet…But I Haven’t Gotten Bucked Off Yet
There are a number of federal regulations that, if I were in charge, would be immediately amended. Obviously, I am not in charge, so despite my best blogging efforts, my blogs do not change federal law. Today, however, I had the honor and privilege to speak to someone who may have the clout and political pull to fix some of the calamities found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) that are so detrimental to health care providers who accept Medicare and Medicaid across the country.
My husband, daughter, and I ride horses nearly every weekend. We ride Western and on trails all over North Carolina and Virginia, mostly on charity rides. And over the past few years, I have, sadly, gone through over 5 horses. Not because the horses have passed. But because each horse had an oddity or behavior issue that either (a) I didn’t want to deal with; or (2) terrified me.
For example, Twist of Luck (Twist) is a gorgeous pure, white horse with a yellow tail and mane and brilliant, blue eyes. But he was what you call, “proud cut.” Meaning that because he sired so many foals, even after he became a gelding he thought like a stallion. One weekend we were at Uwharrie National Park and when I saddled up Twist and mounted him, he decided that he did not want me on his back. My husband said Twist looked like a “poster horse” for a rodeo with his back completely rounded like an angry cat and all four of his hooves in the air. Needless to say, I found myself quite quickly on the ground with a sore tooshie, and Twist found himself sold.
Since I do not have the time to actually train my horse, I need a trained horse.
With my hobby of horseback riding, a well-trained horse is imperative…not only for safety, but for my enjoyment as well.
In the area of Medicare and Medicaid, it is imperative for enough physicians, dentists, and other health care providers to accept Medicare and Medicaid. You see, health care providers choose to accept Medicare and Medicaid. And not all health care providers agree to accept Medicare or Medicaid. But it is important for enough health care providers to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients otherwise the Medicare or Medicaid card in a person’s hand is worthless. Same as Twist was worthless to me that day in Uwharrie. If you can’t ride a horse, what is the point of owning it? If you can’t find a health care provider, what is the use of having coverage?
Here in North Carolina, we decided to not expand Medicaid. This blog is not going to address the ever-growing discontent in the media as to the decision, although you can see my blog: “Medicaid Expansion: Bad for the Poor.”
Instead, this blog will address my idea that I pitched to Congresswoman Renee Ellmers over lunch last week and discussed today with her legislative counsel today as to how it can be implemented.
Here’s my idea:
According to most data, not expanding Medicaid in North Carolina is affecting approximately 1.6 million uninsured North Carolinians. But to my point of the shortage of health care providers accepting Medicaid, what is the point of having an insurance card that no health care provider accepts? Therefore, I propose a pilot program here in NC…a pilot program to help the approximate 1.6 million uninsured in NC. Besides the moral issue that everyone deserves quality health care, fiscally, it is sound to provide the uninsured with quality health care (notice that I did not say to provide the uninsured with Medicaid). When the uninsured go to emergency rooms it costs the taxpayers more than if the uninsured had an insurance policy that would allow primary care and specialty doctor appointments. But with Medicaid…you can count out most specialty care, even some basic necessary care like dental care.
Most of the uninsured in NC are non-disabled men. I say this because it is usually easier to get a child on Medicaid with the Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnostic, Testing (EPSDT) laws. See my blog: “How EPSDT Allows Medicaid Recipients Under the Age of 21 To Receive More Services Than Covered by the State Plan” for an explanation of EPSDT. Many women receive Medicaid based on having dependent children. “In most states, adults without dependent children are ineligible for Medicaid, regardless of their income, and income limits for parents were very low—often below half the poverty level.” See Kaiser Foundation. Which means, generally, many of our uninsured are men without dependents. However, that does not mean they are not fathers. Many of the uninsured are fathers.
Two-thirds of the uninsured live in families where there is at least one full-time worker. However, the percentage of uninsured who live in families with no workers, part-time workers and only one full-time worker has increased 12 percentage points over 5 years. See Demographics.
So how do we help the uninsured without merely handing all uninsured a Medicaid card that will not give them quality health care because not enough trained health care providers accept Medicaid patients?
By giving the uninsured health care insurance, of course! But not Medicaid coverage…oh, no! By giving the uninsured private insurance that will be accepted by all health care providers, all specialists, all durable medical equipment companies, all dentists…
We could partner up with a larger insurer like Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) and create a premium health care insurance on which the insured would pay no premiums or co-pays. Instead, federal grant money would cover the premiums. All that money that NC did not receive based on our decision to not expand Medicaid…can go toward this pilot program to purchase the private insurance for the uninsured.
In order to qualify for this premium, free, private insurance the person must:
1. Be a legal resident;
2. NOT qualify for Medicaid; and
3. Maintain a part time job.
The reasoning behind the criterion of maintaining a part-time job is simple.
It is indisputable that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has motivated employers across America to decrease the number of full-time jobs due to the mandatory expense of employers providing health care to full-time employees.
Obviously, part-time work does not pay well. It is difficult to even maintain a living on part-time work’s low hourly wages. Many people are forced to hold down two-part time jobs in order to survive. If you can not work and receive more government hand outs, what is the incentive to work?
If my idea comes to fruition and many of our uninsured carry a private insurance card and receive quality health care from the providers of their choice, we could create a whole new group of North Carolinians not only contributing to the community by working, but also contributing to their own homes, and improving themselves and those around them.
I don’t want to provide anyone a useless piece of paper that does not provide quality health care. We may as well give everyone a “proud cut” horse that no one could ride.
Thank you, Congresswoman Renee Ellmers, for being willing to listen to me regarding the uninsured and actually follow-up with the intent to implement.
Quality health care is imperative. Necessary. Needed. We need to fix this system.
Medicaid Expansion, Polarization, and Diving Head-First Into the Unknown
I have always believed in the concept to think first, act second. I rarely react; I try to act. In politics, generally, this mantra is not followed. If a public poll states that the public is in favor of X, then the leaders need to consider X. If it is an election year, then the politicians will do X.
I’m reminded of an awful book I read a couple of years ago. I can’t remember the name of it, but it began with a young teen-age couple at a lake. The boyfriend dives off of a dock into the lake and dies because his head hit a rock underneath the water. (I do not suggest reading the book). But I remember thinking… “How tragic,” then… “Why in the world would this guy dive head-first into a lake without knowing the depth or pitfalls? This was a preventable death.”
This is a perfect example of why we should think first, act second.
However, in politics, the polarization of the two parties, Republican and Democrat, sometimes causes politicians to RE-act according to the party lines. Nowhere is this polarization more prevalent than the concept of Medicaid expansion. See my blog: “To Expand, Or Not To Expand, A Nationwide Draw?” It seems that if a state has a Republican governor, without question, that state will refuse to expand (I know there are few exceptions, but there are few). If a state elected a Democratic governor, then the state has elected to expand Medicaid.
Are these issues so black and white? Or have we become so politically polarized that true intellect and research no longer matters? Doesn’t that actual state of the state matter in deciding to expand?
For example, according to a 50-state survey by USA Today, North Dakota is the best run state. North Dakota has zero budget deficit, and an unemployment rate of 3.1%, the lowest of all 50 states. North Dakota has opted to expand Medicaid.
On the other hand, according to the same study, North Carolina has an unemployment rate of 9.5%, which is the 4th highest in the nation. What does high unemployment mean? A large number of Medicaid recipients.
North Dakota has approximately 82,762 Medicaid recipients, according to the Kaiser Foundation for FYE 2010. Conversely, North Carolina, for the same year, had 1,813,298 Medicaid recipients.
So my question is: Can, or should, a state with 1.8 million Medicaid recipients adopt the same Medicaid eligibility rules as a state with 82,000 Medicaid recipients?
And how can we know the consequences of expansion prior to deciding to expand? Because, after all, shouldn’t we think first, act second? Who wants to dive into an unknown lake?
But issues that apparently no one had contemplated are cropping up…
States across America are seeing unexpected Medicaid costs increase. According to the Associated Press, prior to Medicaid expansion there were millions of Americans who were eligible for Medicaid but who, for whatever reason, had never signed up. Now that there has been so much publicity about health care, those former un-insured but Medicaid-eligible people are signing up in droves.
In California, State officials say about 300,000 more already-eligible Californians are expected to enroll than was estimated last fall. See article.
Rhode Island has enrolled 5000-6000 more than its officials expected. In Washington State, people who were previously eligible represent about one-third of new Medicaid enrollments, roughly 165,000 out of a total of nearly 483,000.
While the Feds are picking up the costs for Medicaid recipients now eligible because of the expansion (at least for a few years), state budgets have to cover these new Medicaid recipients signing up who had been eligible in the past.
For states blue or red, the burden of these unanticipated increased costs will be on the shoulders of the states (with federal contribution).
Going back to the extremely polarized view of Medicaid expansion (Democrats expanding and Republicans not expanding)…maybe it’s not all black and white. Maybe we should shed our elephant or donkey skins and actually research our own states. How many Medicaid recipients do we have? What does our budget cover now?
Maybe we should research the consequences before diving in the lake.
Demand With Little Supply: Medicaid Enrollment Up, Physicians’ Acceptance of Medicaid…Not!
In microeconomics, you learn the theory of supply and demand, which is, basically, a model to determine the price of a product. The most basic explanation of supply and demand is if the demand for the product is high and the supply is low then the price of the product will be high. Take diamonds, for example. Whenever there is a finite amount of something the value goes up. I remember my dad telling me to invest in land abutting water. The reason? There is a finite amount of land abutting water. Once all the land is sold that touches water, it is gone unless someone decides to resell.
Similarly, there is a finite number of doctors or health care providers who accept Medicaid. Recently data show that Medicaid enrollment has jumped 3 million since October 2013. There are approximately 61 million Americans on Medicaid and approximately 319,510,848 Americans total. This increase in Medicaid enrollment is mainly due to 26 states expanding Medicaid due to the ACA, although Medicaid enrollment has increased in the states that opted to not expand as well.
That’s GREAT…..right?? 3 million more people are covered by health insurance than were covered back in October 2013. However, although theoretically the statistic should correlate to more people getting medical coverage, it may not.
We cannot assume that offering people Medicaid coverage will necessarily provide them with adequate access to health care services.
While the number of people on Medicaid is climbing, there is no evidence that the number of providers who accept Medicaid is climbing.
Health-care consulting firm, Merritt Hawkins, conducted a 2014 survey of Medicaid acceptance rates in the U.S.’s largest 15 cities. The 2014 survey researched five medical specialties: cardiology, dermatology, obstetrics-gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and family practice. It also calculated the average wait-time for Medicaid recipients to see a doctor in one of the five specialties.
The survey found that only 45.7% of physicians are now accepting Medicaid patients. This is a decrease from 55.4% in 2009 and 49.9% in 2004. Compare the percentage of physicians accepting Medicare, which is 76%.
The percentage of physicians accepting Medicaid varies immensely state by state. In Dallas, TX only 23% of physicians accept Medicaid; whereas in Boston 73% of the physicians accept Medicaid (but even though Boston seems to have more physicians accepting Medicaid, the wait time is not good; the average wait time to see a dermatologist in Boston is 72 days).
Much of the problem is high population and low percentage of doctors. See the table below.
Even more of the problem is that physicians refuse to accept Medicaid. So, looking at the above chart, and based on an estimated current U. S. population of about 319,510,848, there are two physicians for every 845 persons. Yet, only 23% of physicians accept Medicaid in Dallas. Less than half the physicians nationally accept Medicaid. So, of the 845 physicians, roughly 422 of the physicians will refuse to accept Medicaid. More and more Medicaid insured people will have fewer physicians. This is a scary thought.
Remember the horrible tragedy of Deamonte Driver? Even though Deamonte Driver died due to not seeing a dentist, not a physician, the analogy still applies. A 12-year-old Maryland boy, Deamonte Driver, died when a tooth infection spread to his brain. His mother, Alyce Driver, had been unable to find a dentist to treat him on Medicaid. Deamonte Driver died not because he was uninsured; he died because he was insured by the government.
Now imagine that it is not a dentist a parent is trying to find, but a cardiologist, where, in D.C., if you are on Medicaid, the average wait-time to see a cardiologist is 32 days. If only your heart problems would pause for 32 days.
The average cumulative wait times to see a cardiologist in all 15 markets was 16.8 days. Whereas if I were to call up a cardiologist, I would be able to make an appointment within a day or so.
I found a blog online that charted why doctors will not take Medicaid. See below.
See blog.
To physicians, Medicaid is a pain in the arse that reimburses them too little to warrant the pain.
Medicaid recipients suffer.
Going back to the 3 million increase in Medicaid enrollment…that’s great, right? Maybe. It depends whether the recipients can find a doctor.
HHS Announces More Time for Noncompliant Plans, Other ACA Policies
BNA’s Health Care Policy Report:
Posted March 5, 2014
The Obama administration March 5 said consumers can keep their health plans that don’t comply with the Affordable Care Act for two more years, as part of a release of new ACA rules and policies.
The Department of Health and Human Services noted that in fall 2013, the administration extended through 2014 noncompliant health plans in the small group and individual health insurance markets, for insurers that received permission from their state to do so. Now, the department is extending its “transitional policy for two years,” to policy years beginning on or before Oct. 1, 2016.
“This gives consumers in the individual and small group markets the choice of staying in their plan or joining a new Marketplace plan as the new system is fully implemented,” the HHS said.
The HHS also issued a comprehensive ACA insurance markets rule (CMS-9954-F) called the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2015. The regulation includes provisions on premium stabilization; open enrollment for 2015; annual limitations on cost sharing; consumer protections; financial oversight; and the Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP.
For the temporary “risk corridors program,” which helps stabilize premiums when enrollees are much sicker or much healthier than expected, the HHS said it intends to operate the program in a budget-neutral manner, with payments coming in equaling the amount of money going out, “while helping to ensure that prices remain affordable in 2015 and beyond.”
The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service also released final rules (TD 9661) March 5 to implement the information reporting provisions for insurers and certain employers under the ACA that take effect in 2015. Treasury said the final rules on information reporting by employers “will substantially streamline reporting requirements for employers, particularly those that offer highly affordable coverage to full-time employees.” Treasury also released final rules (TD 9660) to provide guidance for reporting by insurers and other parties that provide health coverage under the ACA.
An HHS bulletin on the plan extension is at http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/transition-to-compliant-policies-03-06-2015.pdf. The HHS and Treasury rules are posted at the public inspection website: http://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection.
Why My Career, as a Medicaid Litigator/Medicaid Provider Advocate, is the Best, Most Rewarding Career…Ever!
I have the best and most rewarding career…EVER! It’s not the easiest career. It’s not a 9-5 job. When I schedule family trips, I normally have to cancel the trips or cut them short.
Like next week, my extended family on my dad’s side gets together every year for a week at Emerald Isle, NC. So about 3 months ago, I put in my secured leave with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for next week. Lawyers have to request “secured leave” for vacations. That way, the courts will not schedule hearings or mediations, etc. during the requested vacation time. Secured leave is really the only way to ensure an attorney gets a vacation. In my Medicaid practice, I normally only practice in OAH. For the most part, my clients have administrative complaints, not civil complaints, which would take me to Superior Court. So, I filed my secured leave in OAH only. Well, it just so happens that one of the State’s agents has refused to comply with an Order executed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in OAH. The consequences of the agent’s refusal could be dire. So, we had no choice but to file a Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court. A Writ of Mandamus is an extremely, extraordinary motion. We filed it last week. Superior Court scheduled the Writ hearing for Monday, June 24th (supposedly the 3rd day of my family vacation). So, my vacation is shortened. My client, especially in this specific instance, is just more important than a day or two at the beach.
Anyway, going back to how my career is the best career ever…
My clients are health care providers that choose to accept Medicaid. They are behavioral healthcare providers, dentists, durable medical equipment suppliers, neurologists, primary care physicians, speech therapists, ER physicians/hospitals, hospice providers, etc. No matter the service my clients provide, the common thread is that the provider chooses to provide services to Medicaid recipients. In some fields, these providers willing to accept Medicaid are few and far between. Sometimes Medicaid recipients are placed on a 3-5 month waiting list only to get to see a health care provider for the first time.
My clients are good people. My clients are empathetic. They understand that few providers choose to accept Medicaid. Nevertheless, these providers choose to provide services to the most needy people in North Carolina.
My clients are not greedy. They choose to accept Medicaid despite the low reimbursement rates, despite the complex and burdensome amount of regulations, despite the need to constantly google “NC Medicaid” for Implementation Updates or Special Bulletins, despite the need to constantly attend seminars on Medicaid updates, despite the need to jump through hoops, whether it be CAHBA certifications or applications with the Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), despite the need to undergo harassing audits, and despite the risk of the Division of Medical Assistance, or one of its agents, to merely terminate their Medicaid contract without due process. My clients understand these risks and negative aspects, yet they choose to continue to serve Medicaid recipients.
My clients serve the most needy, most mute, and most underserved population in NC. Obviously, Medicaid recipients, by definition, are the most poor citizens in our state.
My clients are scared. They have been told by the state or its agents that they owe money, that they have “credible allegations of fraud,” or indications of “abhorrent billing practices.” These allegations are unsubstantiated. My clients served their consumers well. But they have to defend these McCarthian-istic allegations, and health care providers, in general, are not litigious. My clients are scared.
My career is the best and most rewarding career ever because I represent clients, who are good people doing good things.
My career is the best and most rewarding career ever because, by helping my clients, I am helping voiceless, Medicaid recipients.
A week or so ago, a client sent me a card saying, “Knicole and Elizabeth [one of my upcoming star-associates], Thank you for all you have done. You have saved a company, 140 jobs, and over 500 Medicaid recipients from having no provider. I almost cried.
I have always looked at my career as: By devoting my career to Medicaid providers, I am able to serve, indirectly, Medicaid recipients. Medicaid recipients, for the most part, sadly, cannot hire me (believe me, I wish I could work for free), but, by my work for Medicaid providers, I am able to help Medicaid recipients by helping the providers the recipients so desperately need.
But this past week, I had the opportunity to help a Medicaid recipient directly, not indirectly. And, I left the hearing with goosebumps, good feelings, and a desire for more.
One of my clients had his or her Medicaid contract terminated; let’s call this person X. Because of X’s termination of Medicaid contract, a Medicaid consumer, a teenage girl, who had seen X weekly for 6 years, was, suddenly, disallowed to see X. Let’s call her ‘A.’ Without X, A spiraled. A became suicidal and homicidal, both at home and at school. She begged to see X. Since not being able to X, A was hospitalized 2x and was taken from her family home and placed in therapeutic foster care. All because A was disallowed to see the one therapist she had become to trust over the course of 6 years.
I decided to take A’s case pro bono.
I filed a Temporary Restraining Order, Motion to Stay, and Preliminary Injunction (TRO) on behalf of A. I argued that A was stable (as stable as possible for a person suffering from her mental illnesses) while she was able to see X. When X’s Medicaid contract was terminated, A was not able to be seen by X. A refused to go to another provider and spiraled. I argued that A should be able to see X while A and X’s lawsuits went forward. A should not suffer while X’s Medicaid contract was erroneously terminated.
A’s mother testified emotionally.
The Judge has not officially ruled yet. But, at the end of the hearing, he wanted to ensure that, while he was deciding the ruling, A would be able to receive services from X. I informed him that, no, A was not currently receiving services from X (despite the TRO being granted the prior week before the preliminary injunction hearing).
The judge looked at counsel for the MCO (the MCO that was not allowing X to see any Medicaid recipients) and said…Why?
Long story, short, my Medicaid recipient client was emotional (in a happy way) with the outcome. While my provider clients are also emotional (in a happy way) with the outcomes, this seemed different. Had I not agreed to work pro bono, this person may never had received relief for her daughter.
Pro bono is tough. You go into a pro bono case understanding that your legal fees will not be paid. But it is rewarding. In OAH, after the final disposition of the case, an attorney may petition for attorneys’ fees. I hope my petition is granted…not because I want these legal fees so badly (honestly, my salary stays the same whether I get these attorneys’ fees or not), but because, if my attorneys’ fees are awarded in this case, maybe, just maybe, I would be able to take on more pro bono cases and help more Medicaid recipients directly.
Regardless, in my career, I go to bed knowing that I have helped good people, good providers and, indirectly, helped Medicaid recipients.
Best….Career….Ever!!!!
