Tag: PPACA

At One Year: The Patently Political Additional Costs Act

The most puzzling of all the decisions that went into the legislative maneuvering that gave us the benighted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a year ago today was, why no acronym-inviting title? You would have thought if Congress was going to so dramatically expand the federal government’s control of health care and insurance, it would embrace a grandiose, if forced, title that would give us an acronym for the ages.

You know, like the PATRIOT Act, or RICO, or last year’s SPEECH Act (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act). Give the law a name to remember it by.

No such luck. Democrats and other supporters usually drop the “Patient Protection” part to refer to the law as simply by the anodyne Affordable Care Act. Republicans deride it as Obamacare.

Such a missed opportunity for truth in acronymization. Is it too late? If not …

  • The HEALTH Act — Helping Eliminate Affordable, Life-extending Treatments, Hospitalization Act
  • The NANNY Act — The Not Affordable, Nope, Not Yet Act
  • ABCDE Act — A Bill that Cost Democrats Election Act

Oh well. Some good commentary as the anniversary festivities subside…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Health Care Law at One Year: Little Protection, Not So Affordable

One year ago today, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the great federal restructuring of U.S. health care. The law’s value in protecting patients is suspect, and it’s doing little to make health care affordable. So, after a year of implementation what has been the real effect?

PPACA: Neither Protective, Nor Affordable

We know that the promise of being able to keep our health plan if we like it was an empty one, and even the Administration’s own actuary admits this fact. When asked during a hearing in the House Budget Committee whether the health care law really allows people to keep the plans they like, Rick Foster stated that claim was “not true in all cases.”

We also know the bulk of the funding for the new entitlement program is based on fuzzy math at best and outright deception at worst. In a stunning admission before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Secretary of Health and Human Services admitted the Administration is counting reductions in Medicare spending as a credit to extending the solvency of the program while also using the same funds to “pay for” a large portion of the expected costs of PPACA. This double-counting allowed the Administration to claim the legislation would save the nation more than $100 billion over the next 10 years — a statement with as much veracity as the promise our health plans wouldn’t change.

As the law enters its second year of implementation, the National Association of Manufacturers will be watching several issues sure to emerge in 2011: the essential benefits package and accountable care organizations (ACO). The essential benefits package defines for all Americans what coverage must purchase in order to avoid penalties under the law. It’s easy to predict how this will turn out: All single men will have to buy a plan that covers pre-natal and post-natal care and all single women will have to have a policy that covers prostate cancer. This is not to say these aren’t important things to cover, but the inequity is clear.

What’s also clear is how the process of determining what is an essential benefit will be manipulated by well-meaning interest groups that will gauge their importance and influence on policymakers based on whether their particular disease category is included as an essential benefit. Special-interest coverage is hardly a strategy for controlling health care costs.

While accountable care organizations (ACOs) seem to be an attractive idea in some health care policy circles, there are some (this author included) who believe the consolidation and integration of hospitals and physician practices could do irreparable harm to competition in the marketplace. ACOs may work fine in a single-payer system like Medicare, but it could wreak havoc on negotiations for payment rates and the establishment of networks in a private market which depends on competition in order to arrive at a mutually agreed upon price for services. In small to medium-sized communities, this consolidation could lead to oligopolies or monopolies in health care services. Such an outcome would raise prices and make care less affordable.

Many proponents believed, and continue to believe, Americans will warm to the law once they see all the great things and reap all the rewards of the centralized command-and-control this law will bestow upon us. The results so far leave us cold. (continue reading…)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Like Your Health Care Plan? You Can’t Keep It

During the consideration of health reform, we were assured repeatedly by President Obama and proponents of the behemoth euphemistically called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that if we liked our health insurance we could keep it.  Many opponents of the bill, including the National Association of Manufacturers, never bought that talking point and now we know for a fact the promise will not be kept.

Ostensibly, the intent of health reform was to insure the uninsured and protect the coverage of those who get health insurance from their employer.  Instead, what we got is a looming crisis for as many as 170 million Americans who could lose their coverage because their employer can’t afford to provide it anymore or inadvertently runs afoul of the government.  Now that’s reform.

The “grandfather rule” issued by the Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) in June essentially read like a cynical attempt to make good on a promise never intended to be kept.  (HHS news release, fact sheet, rule.) In a technical sense, if your plan doesn’t change at all from what it looked like on March 23, 2010, you can keep it – but how realistic is that?  Not very, and they know it.

In fact, the HHS itself acknowledges that up to 70 percent of all employers will either lose their health plan by violating the new federal regulations or forgo grandfather status on their own within the first three years.

Under the rules for so-called “grandfathered plans,” small businesses that purchase health insurance for their employees have been stripped of the single most important tool they have to keep their rates in line – the ability to shop around and negotiate with multiple health insurance companies to get the best coverage they can afford.  If an employer switches insurance companies now, they lose their grandfather status.

If employers decide to stick it out with their current plan, other tools to keep costs in check have been taken away as well.  Increase co-payments beyond limits set in the regulation?  Lose your grandfathering.  Increase employee cost-sharing for premiums beyond what the government tells you?  Lose your grandfathering.  And the HHS isn’t done yet.

HHS has asked for comments on whether a plan should lose its grandfather status if it changes their prescription drug coverage or the network of physicians and hospitals beneficiaries can see.  These are common alterations insurers and employers look to for cost control so their employees can afford the coverage.  The NAM will be submitting comments to the HHS today on these and other issues raised by the rule. [UPDATE: Here are the NAM's comments.]

Unless significant changes are made, it seems clear what the end goal is with the so-called “grandfather rule” – design it to effectively ensure that within three years all current employer-based plans will go the way of the Dodo.

 Joe Trauger is the NAM’s Vice President for Human Resources Policy.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)


A Manufacturing Blog

  • Categories

  • Connect With Manufacturers

            
  • Blogroll