Health Care Reform Blog : Health Care Law Reform : McDermott Will & Emery Law Firm

The Facts

In preparation for the bipartisan White House health care summit on February 25, 2010, President Obama unveiled on February 22 his own health care reform proposal. The president's plan largely tracks the health reform bill passed by the Senate in December 2009. The proposal, estimated to cost $950 billion over 10 years, would cover an additional 31 million people and is intended to serve as a springboard for bipartisan discussion at the summit. It is unlikely, however, that the proposal will draw bipartisan support given that the proposal appears to have been crafted to attract additional support from liberal Democratic members of the House of Representatives. Already, the early read from the Congressional Progressive Caucus is positive. The president and Democratic leaders are hopeful that this new proposal, along with the high-profile White House summit and recently announced double-digit premium increases by some insurers, will help produce health reform legislation soon. 

Like the December Senate bill, the president’s proposal does not include a public option or the more restrictive abortion language passed by the House. Some key differences made to provisions in the Senate bill include the following:

• Delaying enactment of the "Cadillac" tax on high-cost insurance plans to 2018
• Including strengthened measures to address Medicare fraud, abuse and waste
• Eliminating the “cornhusker kickback” that would have directed extra Medicaid monies solely to Nebraska, and instead increasing the federal share of Medicaid costs for newly eligible beneficiaries in all states
• Providing additional tax credits to certain U.S. residents to purchase insurance
• Eliminating the Medicare prescription drug benefit “doughnut hole” by 2020
• Extending the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll income tax to unearned income for couples earning more than $250,000
• Including a provision that would give the HHS Secretary—in conjunction with a Health Insurance Rate Authority board—the power to review and determine whether proposed insurance rate increases are “reasonable and justifiable”

What’s at Stake

If the current gridlock over health care reform cannot be resolved in a bipartisan manner, Democrats will likely attempt to use the budget reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority vote in the Senate, to pass health reform legislation.

Steps to Consider

All in the health sector, including health care consumers, should evaluate the president’s proposal and continue to monitor the progress of the health reform debate.

• Print
• Share Link

The Facts 

Both the House health reform bill, H.R. 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act), and the Senate health reform bill, H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), include provisions establishing one or more health insurance marketplaces (exchanges). The exchanges would serve as an organized and transparent marketplace designed to facilitate access to, evaluation of and purchase of qualified health insurance plans by individuals and small businesses. Premium subsidies would be available through the exchange, and benefit packages would be structured in standardized tiers. An exchange would seek to create a large enough risk pool so that competition among insurers would increase not only with respect to pricing but on quality and service aspects as well. Insurance market reforms in both bills would disallow preexisting condition exclusions and impose medical loss ratio requirements. 

There are key differences between the House and Senate proposals. The House bill would create one national exchange overseen by a new federal agency, the Health Choices Administration (HCA), with an opt-out provision for states under certain circumstances. The HCA would oversee the health plans and premiums charged for policies available through the exchange. Under the House bill, the exchange would be the exclusive marketplace for all individual (non-group) policies, other than grandfathered policies. Insurers would be required to bid to participate in the exchange, with the HCA able to negotiate terms before allowing a plan to participate in the exchange. By contrast, the Senate bill provides for each state to establish and administer its own exchange, subject to compliance with minimum federal standards, with federal intervention if a state does not provide an exchange. 

What’s at Stake

The exchanges will be at the crux of revamping the individual and small business markets. Whether there is a single national exchange or separate state exchanges will have significant implications for providers, payors and consumers. The House proposal could offer greater economies of scale and potential efficiencies for products offered across state lines, but would represent a significant shift from how insurance is currently regulated at the state level. The Senate proposal would retain the benefit of the local market knowledge of the states and would preclude an additional layer of federal regulation. 

Steps to Consider

Understand the impact of the exchanges on structure and oversight of the insurance market, evaluate current plans and prepare for refinements needed to transition to new exchanges.

• Print
• Share Link

The Facts

Although Senate Democrats recently lost their filibuster-proof supermajority, President Obama reiterated in his January 27, 2010, State of the Union address that he is intent on achieving health reform this year. The president exhorted Congress not to “run for the hills,” and invited Congress to instead “come together and finish the job for the American people.” In an effort to encourage Republicans and Democrats to work together, the president invited congressional leaders to a bipartisan, half-day summit on health reform on February 25, 2010. Click here for the president’s invitation letter and invitation list.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed: “You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman underscored these sentiments, stating: "We remain confident we will pass health reform this year.”

Whether comprehensive legislation, piecemeal legislation or no health reform legislation is passed this year will affect not only the health sector and health care consumers, but also the mid-term elections this November.

What’s at Stake

Given the comprehensive nature of health reform legislation, every aspect of health care is at stake.

Steps to Consider

Providers, plans, pharmaceutical manufacturers, device makers, and all in the health sector or affected by the health sector, including health care consumers, should continue to carefully monitor the progress of the health reform debate and evaluate the impact of the various proposals. 

• Print
• Share Link

The Facts 

On January 13, 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed requirements for hospitals, physicians and other eligible providers to earn incentives for the adoption and “meaningful use” of “certified electronic health record (EHR) technology.”  Incentives in the form of enhanced Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement are received by demonstrating meaningful use of certified EHR technology.  The incentives start in 2011, but become penalties by 2015 through reduced reimbursements for those who do not achieve meaningful use.  This initial set of standards is intended to begin to define “a common language to ensure accurate and secure health information exchange across different EHR systems.”  Certified EHR technology can be either a “complete EHR or a combination of EHR modules" to enable providers to adapt to innovations in a rapidly evolving industry while ensuring access to a wide array of technology options, from vendor-based products, to homegrown technology, to hosted services on a subscription basis, to open source products.  For more information, see McDermott Will & Emery’s White Paper “HHS Establishes the Initial Pathway for Qualifying for HITECH Act Incentives Dollars for Meaningful Use of Certified Electronic Health Record Technology.”

What’s at Stake

Eligible hospitals and professionals may receive incentive payments for achieving and may avoid penalties for failing to achieve meaningful use of certified EHR technology.  Some hospitals and doctors have already expressed concern about the all or nothing structure of the proposed rule, which requires providers to meet 23 criteria at once, or fail to qualify at all.  Vendors of EHR systems or EHR modules must ensure their products have the features and functionality to be certified and to enable meaningful use although the certifying bodies have yet to be certified.

Steps to Consider

Providers, vendors of health information technology and other interested parties should consider submitting comments to HHS prior to the March 15, 2010, deadline.  

In selecting an EHR, ensure that the EHR product by itself or combined with other EHR modules will achieve, or be modified by the vendor to achieve, certification.  Assess interoperability of modules.  Consider contractual commitments covering interoperability, certification and meaningful use. 

Vendors should develop a road map or work-around to ensure that products will be certified and that they will enable meaningful use.  Vendors should be ready to address customer demand for assurances.   

• Print
• Share Link

The Facts

Medicare Advantage (MA) Program changes, among other Medicare-related provisions, have appeared in drafts of jobs legislation under development on Capitol Hill. Select proposals include the following:

• The formula for calculating the CY 2011 national per capita MA growth rate, for purposes of updating CY 2011 benchmarks, would be amended to provide a 0 percent update to the physician fee schedule conversion factor.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would be authorized to extend to Direct Contract MA Organizations CMS’s waiver of service area requirements available to local coordinated care plans offering 800-Series MA Plans with Members residing outside of the service area
• Special Needs Plans serving dual eligible individuals where the sponsoring MA Organization does not have a contract with the applicable state Medicaid agency, as required under § 1859(f)(3)(D) of the Social Security Act, would be permitted to operate through CY 2011, although the service areas of such plans would not be eligible for expansion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), however, elected to move forward with draft legislation that excludes all health-related provisions. These proposed MA Program changes, among other health-related proposals, may be included in this bill, or another piece of legislation, later this month.

What’s at Stake

The proposal to modify the national per capita MA growth rate would neutralize the cut in the Medicare physician fee schedule that is statutorily required to be incorporated into MA Plan benchmarks.

Steps to Consider

MA Organizations should continue to monitor and analyze proposed changes to CY 2011 benchmarks as CY 2011 MA Plan bid submissions are developed in advance of the Monday, June 7, 2010 bid submission deadline.

• Print
• Share Link

The Facts

The Senate health reform bill would establish a 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) with significant authority with respect to Medicare payment rates. Beginning in 2014, in any year in which the Medicare per capita growth rate exceeded a target growth rate, the IPAB would be required to recommend Medicare spending reductions.  The recommendations would become law unless Congress passed an alternative proposal that achieved the same level of budgetary savings. Subject to some limitations—hospitals, for example, would be exempt until 2020—the IPAB could recommend spending reductions affecting Medicare providers and suppliers, as well as Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug Plans.  In years in which the IPAB would not be required to make recommendations, it would be required to submit an advisory report.  Every two years, the IPAB would make recommendations on slowing the growth of private health expenditures. 

The proposed IPAB has drawn significant criticism from advocacy groups, and a similar provision is not included in the House bill. However, the Senate’s IPAB proposal has strong support from President Obama and is expected to emerge in some form in any final comprehensive health reform package.

What’s at Stake

Medicare providers and suppliers could be subject to significant payment cuts if the proposed IPAB is enacted and overall Medicare spending continues to increase at its current rate.  A group of providers and advocacy groups, including the American Hospital Association, joined in a January 11, 2010, letter opposing the IPAB, noting that it would not be accountable to anyone but the president (who appoints its members). Shifting payment authority from Congress to an independent commission would be a significant change, and is viewed as one of the most meaningful measures in health reform legislation with respect to bending the cost curve in health spending.

Steps to Consider

• Understand the broad and significant powers granted to the IPAB. For example, achieving coverage of new procedures and technologies could be impeded significantly if the role of Congress is minimized.
• Keep informed about the Medicare per capita growth rate and the IPAB’s authority to make recommendations for payment reductions.
• Should the IPAB be enacted, work to identify individuals for nomination. ‪

• Print
• Share Link