Medicaid Archives - 素人色情片Health News /topics/medicaid/ Fri, 17 May 2024 21:37:59 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.3 /wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Medicaid Archives - 素人色情片Health News /topics/medicaid/ 32 32 161476233 素人色情片Health News' 'What the Health?': Bird Flu Lands as the Next Public Health Challenge /news/podcast/what-the-health-347-bird-flu-next-public-health-challenge-may-16-2024/ Thu, 16 May 2024 18:30:00 +0000 /?p=1852751&post_type=podcast&preview_id=1852751 The Host Julie Rovner 素人色情片Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 素人色情片Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

Public health officials are watching with concern since a strain of bird flu spread to dairy cows in at least nine states, and to at least one dairy worker. But in the wake of covid-19, many farmers are loath to let in health authorities for testing.

Meanwhile, another large health company 鈥 the Catholic hospital chain Ascension 鈥 has been targeted by a cyberattack, leading to serious problems at some facilities.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 素人色情片Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang Stat News Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico Sandhya Raman CQ Roll Call

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Stumbles in the early response to bird flu bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the early days of covid, including the troubles protecting workers who could be exposed to the disease. Notably, the Department of Agriculture benefited from millions in covid relief funds designed to strengthen disease surveillance.
  • Congress is working to extend coverage of telehealth care; the question is, how to pay for it? Lawmakers appear to have settled on a two-year agreement, though more on the extension 鈥 including how much it will cost 鈥 remains unknown.
  • Speaking of telehealth, a new report shows about 20% of medication abortions are supervised via telehealth care. State-level restrictions are forcing those in need of abortion care to turn to options farther from home.
  • And new reporting on Medicaid illuminates the number of people falling through the cracks of the government health system for low-income and disabled Americans 鈥 including how insurance companies benefit from individuals’ confusion over whether they have Medicaid coverage at all.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Atul Grover of the Association of American Medical Colleges about its recent analysis showing that graduating medical students are avoiding training in states with abortion bans and major restrictions.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:听

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “,” by Jonathan Lambert.听听

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Time’s “,” by Alana Semuels.听听

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Stat’s “,” by Nicholas Florko.听听

Sandhya Raman: The Baltimore Banner’s “,” by Ben Conarck.听听

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

Click to open the transcript Transcript: Bird Flu Lands as the Next Public Health Challenge

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands.

This is not a movie trailer and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 素人色情片Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 16, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast following her sabbatical, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hi, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Atul Grover of the Association of American Medical Colleges. He’s the co-author of the analysis we talked about on last week’s episode about how graduating medical students are avoiding applying for residencies in states with abortion bans or severe restrictions. But first this week’s news.

Well, I have been trying to avoid it, but I guess we finally have to talk about bird flu, which I think we really need to start calling “cow flu.” I just hope we don’t have to call it the next pandemic. Seriously, scientists say they’ve never seen the H5N1 virus spread quite like this before, including to at least one farmworker, who luckily had a very mild case. And public health officials are, if not actively freaking out, at least expressing very serious concern.

On the one hand, the federal government is providing livestock farmers tens of thousands of dollars each to beef up their protective measures 鈥 yes, I did that on purpose 鈥 and test for the avian flu virus in their cows, which seems to be spreading rapidly. On the other hand, many farmers are resisting efforts to allow health officials to test their herds, and this is exactly the kind of thing at the federal level that touches off those intra-agency rivalries between FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].

Is this going to be the first test of how weak our public health sector has become in the wake of covid? And how worried should we be both about the bird flu and about the ability of government to do anything about it? Rachel, you wrote about this this week.

Cohrs Zhang: I did, yes. It is kind of wild to see a lot of these patterns play out yet again, as if we’ve learned nothing. We still have a lot of challenges between coordinating with state and local health officials and federal agencies like CDC. We’re still seeing authorities that are exactly the same between USDA and FDA. USDA actually got $300 million from covid relief bills to try to increase their surveillance for these kind of diseases that spread among animals, but people are worried it could all potentially jump to humans.

So I think there was a lot of hope that maybe we would learn some lessons and learn to respond better, but I think we have seen some hiccups and just these jurisdictional issues that have just continued to happen because Congress didn’t really address some of these larger authorities in any meaningful way.

Rovner: I think the thing that worries me the most is looking at the dairy farmers who don’t want to let inspectors onto their farms. That strikes me as something that could seriously hamper efforts to know how widely and how fast this is spreading.

Cohrs Zhang: It could. And USDA does have more authority than they have had in other foodborne disease outbreaks like E. coli or salmonella to get on these farms, according to the experts that I’ve talked to. But we do see sometimes federal agencies don’t always want to use their full statutory authority because then it creates conflict. And obviously USDA has this dual mission of both ensuring food safety and promoting agriculture. And I think that comes into conflict sometimes and USDA just hasn’t been willing to enforce anything mandatory on farms yet. They’ve been kind of trying to use the carrot instead of the stick approach so far. So we’ll see how that goes and how much information they’re able to obtain with the measures they’ve used so far.

Rovner: Alice, you want to add something.

Ollstein: Yeah, I mean, like Rachel said, it’s sort of Groundhog Day for some of the bigger missteps of covid: inadequate testing, inadequate PPE [personal protective equipment]. But it’s also like a scary repeat of some of the specifics of covid, which really hit agricultural workers really hard. And a lot of that wasn’t known at the time, but we know it now. And a lot of workers in these agricultural, meatpacking, and other sectors, were just really devastated and forced to keep working during the outbreak.

This sector in particular has been resistant to public health enforcement and we’re just seeing that repeat once again with a potentially more deadly virus should it make the jump to humans.

Rovner: Basically, from what they can tell, this virus is in a lot of milk. It seems that pasteurization can kill it, but is this maybe what will get people to stop drinking raw milk, which isn’t that safe anyway? And if you need to know why you shouldn’t drink raw milk, I will link to a by Rachel’s colleague Nick Florko about how easy it is to buy raw milk and how dangerous it can be. This is one of those things where the public looks at the public health and goes, “Yeah, nah.”

Ollstein: Right, yeah. I think, at least anecdotally, the raw milk seller that Nick bought from indicated that business is good for him, business is booming. A lot of the people that maybe weren’t so concerned about covid aren’t so concerned about bird flu, and I think that will continue to drink that. Again, we haven’t seen a lot of data about how exactly that works with bird flu fragments or virus fragments: whether it’s showing up in raw milk?; what happens when people drink it? There’s so many questions we have right now because I think the FDA has been focused on pasteurized milk because that’s what most people drink. But certainly in terms of concern with transitions into humans, I think that’s an area to watch.

Raman: One of the things that struck me was that one of the benefits from what the USDA and HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] were doing was the benefit for workers to get a swab test and do an interview so they can study more and gauge the situation.

If $75 is enough to incentivize people to take off work, to maybe have to do transportation, to do those other things. And if they’ll be able to get some of the data, just as Rachel was saying, to just kind of continue gauging the situation. So I think that’ll be interesting to see.

Because even with when we had covid, there were so many incentives that we did just for vaccines that we hoped would be successful for different populations and money and prizes and all sorts of things that didn’t necessarily move the needle.

Rovner: Although some did. And nice pun there.

All right, well, moving on to less potentially-end-of-the-world health news, Congress is grappling with whether and how to extend coverage of telehealth and, if so, how to pay for it. Telehealth, of course, was practically the only way to get nonemergency health care throughout most of the pandemic, and both patients and providers got used to it and even, dare I say, came to like it. But as a succinctly put it this week, telehealth “has the potential to reduce expenses but also lead to more visits, driving up costs.”

Rachel, you’ve been watching this also this week. Where are we on these competing telehealth bills?

Cohrs Zhang: Well, we have some news this morning. The [House Committee on] Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee is planning to mark up their telehealth bill. And the underlying bill will be a permanent extension of some of these Medicare telehealth flexibilities that matter a lot to seniors. But they’re planning to amend it today, so that they’re proposing a two-year extension, which does fall more in line with what the Ways and Means Committee, which is kind of the counterpart that makes policy on health care, marked up 鈥

Rovner: Yes, they shared jurisdiction over Medicare.

Cohrs Zhang: 鈥 unanimously passed. They shared, yes, but it is surprising and remarkable for them to come to an agreement this quickly on a two-year extension. Again, I think industry would’ve loved to see a little bit more certainty on this for what these authorities are going to look like, but I think it is just expensive. Again, when these bills pass out of committee, then we’ll actually get formal cost estimates for them, which will be helpful in informing what our end-of-the-year December package is going to look like on health care. But we are seeing some alignment now in the House on a two-year telehealth extension for some of these very impactful measures for Medicare patients.

Rovner: Congress potentially getting things done months before they actually have to! Dare we hope?

Meanwhile, bridging this week’s topics between telehealth and abortion, which we will get to next, a new report from the family planning group WeCount! finds that not only are medication abortions more than half of all abortions being performed these days, but telehealth medication abortions now make up 20% of all medication abortions.

Some of this increase obviously is the pandemic relaxation of in-person medication abortion rules by the FDA, as well as shield laws that attempt to protect providers in states where abortion is still legal, who prescribe the pills for patients in states where abortion is banned.

Still, I imagine this is making anti-abortion activists really, really frustrated because it is certainly compromising their ability to really stop abortions in these states with bans, right?

Ollstein: Well, I think for a while we’ve seen anti-abortion activists really targeting the two main routes for people who live in states with bans to still have an abortion. One is ordering pills and the other is traveling out of state. And so they are exploring different policies to cut off both. Obviously both are very hard to police, both logistically and legally. There’s been a lot of debate about how this would be enforced. You see Louisiana moving to make abortion pills a controlled substance and police it that way. These pills are used for more than just abortions, so there’s some health care implications to going down that route. They’re used in miscarriage management, they’re used for other things as well in health care. And then of course, the enforcement question. Short of going through everyone’s mail, which has obvious constitutional problems, how would you ever know? These pills are sent to people’s homes in discreet packaging.

What we’ve seen so far with anti-abortion laws and their enforcement is that just the chilling effect alone and the fear is often enough to deter people from using different methods. And so that could be the goal. But actually cutting off people from telehealth abortions that, like you said, like the report said, have become very, very widely used, seems challenging.

Raman: And I would say that that really underscores the importance of the case we’d heard this year from the Supreme Court, and that we will get a decision coming up about the regulation of medication abortions. And how the court lands on that could have a huge impact on the next steps for all of these. So it’s in flux regardless of what’s happening here.

Cohrs Zhang: I want to emphasize, too, that mail-order abortion pills have been sort of held up as this silver bullet for getting around bans. And for a lot of people, that seems to be the case. But I really hear from providers and from patients that this is not a solution for everyone. A lot of people don’t have internet access or don’t know how to navigate different websites to find a reliable source for the pills. Or they’re too scared to do so, scared by the threat of law enforcement or scared that they could purchase some sort of counterfeit that isn’t effective or harms them.

Some people, even when they’re eligible for a medication abortion, prefer surgical or procedural because with a medication you take it and then you have to wait a few weeks to find out if it worked. And so some people would rather go into the clinic, make sure it’s done, have that peace of mind and security.

Also, these pills are delivered to people’s homes. Some people, because of a domestic violence situation or because they’re a minor who’s still at home with their parents, they can’t have anything sent to their homes. There’s a lot of reasons why this isn’t a solution for everyone, that I’ve been hearing about, but it is a solution, it seems, for a lot of people.

Rovner: In other abortion news this week, Democrats in the Missouri state Senate this week broke the record for the longest filibuster in history in an effort to block anti-abortion forces from making it harder for voters to amend the state constitution.

Alice, this feels pretty familiar, like it’s just about what happened in Ohio, right? And I guess the filibuster is over, but so far they’ve managed to be successful. What’s happening in Missouri?

Ollstein: So Missouri Democrats, with their filibuster that lasted for days, managed to stop a vote for now on a measure that would’ve made ballot measures harder to pass, including the abortion rights ballot measure that’s expected this fall. It’s not over yet. They sort of kicked it back to committee, but there’s only basically a day left in the legislature session, and so stay tuned over the next day to see what happens.

But what Democrats are trying to do is prevent what happened in Ohio, which is setting up a summer special election on a provision that would make all ballot measures harder to pass in the future. In Ohio, they did hold that summer vote, and voters defeated it and then went on to pass an abortion rights measure. And so even if Republicans push this through, it can still be scuttled later. But there, Democrats are trying to nip it in the bud to make sure that doesn’t happen in the first place.

Rovner: I thought that was very well explained. Thank you very much.

And speaking of misleading ballot measures, next door in Nebraska 鈥 and I did have to look at a map to make sure that Nebraska and Missouri do have a border, they do 鈥 anti-abortion forces are pushing a ballot measure they’re advertising as enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution, but which would actually enshrine the state’s current 12-week ban.

We’re seeing more and more of this: anti-abortion forces trying to sort of confuse voters about what it is that they’re voting on.

Raman: I mean, I think that that has been something that we have been seeing a little bit more of this. They’ve been trying different tactics to see 鈥 the same metaphor of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. So with Nebraska right now, the proposal is to ban abortions after the first trimester, except in the trio of cases: medical emergencies, rape, incest.

And so that’s definitely different than a lot of the other ballot measures that we’ve seen in the last few years in that it’s being kind of pitched as a little bit of a middle ground and it has the backing of the different anti-abortion groups. But at the same time, it would allow state legislature to put additional bans on top of that. This is just kind of like the mark in the constitution and it would already keep in place the bans that you have in place.

So it’s a little bit more difficult to comprehend, especially if you’re just kind of walking in and checking a box, since there’s more nuance to it than some of the other measures. And I think that a lot of that is definitely more happening in states like that and others.

Rovner: I feel like we’re learning a lot more about ballot measures and how they work. And while we’re in the Great Plains, there’s a wild story out of South Dakota this week about an actual scam related to signatures on petitions for abortion ballot measures. Somebody tease this one apart.

Ollstein: So in South Dakota, they’ve already submitted signatures to put an abortion rights measure on the November ballot. The state is, as happens in most states, going through those signatures to verify it. What’s different than most states is that the state released the names of some of the people who signed the petition, and that enabled these anti-abortion groups to look up all those people and start calling them, and to try to convince them to withdraw their signatures to deny this from going forward.

What happened is that, in doing so, these groups are accused of misrepresenting themselves and impersonating government officials in the way they said, “Hey, we’re the ballot integrity committee of the something, something, something.” And they said it in a way that made it sound like they were with the secretary of state’s office. So the secretary of state put out a press release condemning this and referring it to law enforcement.

The group has admitted to doing this and said it’s done nothing wrong, that technically it didn’t say anything untrue. Of course there’s lying versus misleading versus this versus that. It’s a bit complicated here.

So regardless, I am skeptical that enough people will bother to go through the process of withdrawing their signature to make a difference. It’s a lot more work to withdraw your signature than to sign in the first place. You have to go in person or mail something in. And so I am curious to see if, one, whether this is illegal, and two, whether it makes a difference on the ground.

Rovner: Well, at some point, I think by the end of the summer we’ll be able to make a comprehensive list of where there are going to be ballot measures and what they’re going to be. In the meantime, we shall keep watching.

Let’s move on to another continuing story: health system cyberhacks. This week’s victim is Ascension, a large Catholic system with hospitals in 19 states. And the hack, to quote the AP, “forced some of its 140 hospitals to divert ambulances, caused patients to postpone medical tests, and blocked online access to patient records.”

You would think in the wake of the Change Healthcare hack, big systems like Ascension would’ve taken steps to lock things down more, or is that just me?

Cohrs Zhang: We’re still using fax machines, Julie. What are your expectations here? So cyberattacks have been a theoretical concern of health systems for a long time. I mean, back in 2019, 2020, Congress was kind of sliding provisions into spending bills to help support health systems in upgrading their systems. But again, we’re just seeing the scale. And I think these stories that came out this week really illustrate the human impact of these cyberattacks. And people are waiting longer in an ambulance to get to the hospital.

I mean, that’s a really serious issue. And I’m hoping that health systems will start taking this seriously. But I think it’s just exposing yet another risk that the failure to upgrade these systems isn’t just an inconvenience for people actually using the system. It isn’t just a disservice to all kind of the power of health care data and patients’ information that they could be leveraging better. But it’s also a real medical concern with these attacks. So I am optimistic. We’ll see. Sometimes it takes these sort of events to force change.

Rovner: Well, just before we started to tape this morning, I saw a story out of Tennessee about one of the hospitals that’s being affected. And apparently it is. and the lead. I mean, these are really serious things. It’s not just what’s going on in the back room, it’s what’s going on with patient care.

In maybe the most depressing hacking story ever, in Connecticut criminals are hacking and stealing the value of people’s electronic food stamp debit card. The Stamford Advocate wrote about five times and who are out nearly $1,400 they can’t get back because the state can only reimburse people for two hacks. I remember when electronic funds transfers were going to make our lives so much easier. They do seem to be making lives so much easier for criminals.

Finally this week, more on the mess that is the Medicaid unwinding, from two of my colleagues. One story by Daniel Chang is about how people with disabilities, who shouldn’t really have been impacted by the unwinding anyway, are losing critical home care services in all of the administrative confusion. This seems a lot like the cases of eligible children losing coverage because their parents were deemed to have too-high income, even though children have different eligibility criteria.

I know the Biden administration has been trying to soft-pedal its pushes to some of these states. Rachel, you were talking about the USDA trying not to push too hard, but it does seem like in Medicaid a lot of eligible people are falling between the cracks.

Raman: Yeah, I mean states, as we’ve seen, have been really trying to see how fast that they can go to kind of reverify this huge batch of folks because it will be a cost saver for them to have fewer folks on the rolls. But as you’re saying, that a lot of people are falling through the cracks, especially when it’s unintentionally getting pulled from the program like your colleague’s story. And people with a lot of chronic disabilities already qualify for Medicaid, don’t need to be reverified each time because they’re continually qualified for it. And so there are some cases that have been filed already by the National Health Law Program in Colorado, and [Washington,] D.C., and Texas. And so we’ll kind of see as time goes on, how those go and if there’s any changes made to stop that.

Rovner: Also on the Medicaid beat, my colleague Phil Galewitz has a story that’s kind of the opposite. According to a study in the policy journal Health Affairs, a third of those enrolled in Medicaid in 2022, didn’t even know it. That’s 26 million people. And 3 million people actually thought they were uninsured when they in fact had Medicaid. That not only meant lots of people who didn’t get needed health services because they thought they couldn’t afford them because they thought they didn’t have insurance, but also managed-care companies who got paid for these enrollees who never got any care, and conveniently never bothered to inform them that they were covered. Rachel, you had a comment about this?

Cohrs Zhang: I did, yes. One part I really liked about this story is how Phil highlighted that it’s in insurance companies’ best interests for these people not to know that they can get health care services. Because a lot of Medicaid, they’re getting a payment for each member, capitated payments. And so if people aren’t using it, then the insurance companies are making more money. And so I think there has been some more, I think, political conversation about the incentives that capitated payments create especially in the Medicaid population. And so I think that was certainly just a disservice. I mean, these people have been done a disservice by someone. And I think that it’s a really interesting question of who should have been reaching them. And we’ll just, I guess, never know how much care they could have gotten and how their lives could be different had they known.

Rovner: It’s funny, we’ve known for a long time when they do the uninsured statistics that people don’t always know what kind of insurance they have. And they’ll say when they started asking a follow-up question, the Census Bureau started asking a follow-up question about insurance, suddenly the number of uninsured went down. This is the first time I’ve seen a study like this though, where people actually had insurance but didn’t know it. And it’s really interesting. And you’re right, it has real policy ramifications.

All right, well that’s the news for this week. Before we get to our interview, Sandhya, you’ve been gone for the last couple of months on sabbatical. Tell us what you saw in Europe.

Raman: Yeah, so it’s good to be back. I was gone for six weeks mostly to France, improving my French to see how I could get better at that and hopefully use it in my reporting at some point. It was interesting because I was trying to tune out of the news a little bit and stay away from health care. And of course when you try to do that, it comes right back to you. So I would be in my French class and we’d do a practice, let’s read an article or learn a historical thing, and lo and behold, one of the examples was about abortion politics in France over the years.

It was interesting to have to explain to my classmates, “Yes, I’m very familiar with this topic, and how much do you want me to talk about how this is in my country? But let me make sure I know all of those words.” So it pops up even when you think you’re going to sneak away from it.

Rovner: Yes, and we’re very obviously U.S.-centric here, but when you go to another country you realize none of their health systems work that well either. So the frustration continues everywhere.

All right, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with Atul Grover, then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Atul Grover, executive director of the Association of American [Medical] Colleges’ Research and Action Institute. I bet you have a very long business card.

And I want to offer him a public apology for not having him on sooner. Atul is the co-author of the report we talked about on last week’s episode on how graduating medical students are less likely to apply for residency in states with abortion bans and restrictions. Welcome at last to “What the Health?”

Grover: Better late than never.

Rovner: So there seems to be some confusion, at least in social media land, about some of the numbers here. Tell us what your analysis found.

Grover: First, Julie, is there ever not confusion in social media land? The numbers basically bear out the same thing that we saw last year 鈥 making it a very short but real trend 鈥 which is that when we look at where new U.S. medical school graduates are applying for residencies, and they apply to any number of programs, what they’re doing, it appears, is selectively avoiding those states in which abortion is either completely banned or severely restricted. And that’s not just in reproductive health-heavy specialties like OB-GYN, but it seems to be across the board.

Rovner: Now, can you explain why all of the numbers seem to be going down? It’s not that the number of applicants are falling, it’s the number of applications.

Grover: There’s about 20,000 people that graduate from U.S. MD [medical degree] schools every year. There are another 15[,000] to 20,000 applicants for residency positions that are DO [doctor of osteopathic medicine] graduates domestically or international graduates. Could be U.S. citizens or foreign citizens.

But what we’ve tried to do for a number of years is encourage applicants to apply to a fewer number of residency programs because we found that they were out-applying, they were over-applying. Where we did some data analyses a couple of years back on diminishing returns where we said, “Look, once you apply to 15, 20, 30 programs, your likelihood of matching, I know you’re nervous, but the likelihood of matching is not going to go up. You’re going to do fine. You don’t need to apply to 60, 70, 80 programs.”

So the good news is we’re actually seeing those numbers come down by about, for U.S. medical grads, about 7% this year, which is really the first time that I can remember in the last 10 years that this has happened. So that is good news.

Rovner: And that was an explicit goal.

Grover: That was an explicit goal. We want to make this cheaper, easier, and more rational for applicants and for programs, as they have to screen people and figure out who really wants to come to their program.

So overall, we were really pleased to see that the average applicant, as they applied to programs, applied to a few less programs, which meant that in many cases they were maybe not applying to one or two states that the average applicant might’ve applied to last year. So on average, each state saw about a 10% decrease in the number of unique applicants. But that decrease was much higher when we looked at those states that had banned abortion or severely limited it.

Rovner: Eventually, all these residency positions fill though, right, because there are more applicants as you point out, more graduating medical students and incoming graduates from other countries than there are slots. So why should we care, if all of these programs are filling?

Grover: So, I think you should always care about the number of residency spots, and I know you have a long history here, as do I, in that that is the bottleneck where we have to deal with why we have physician shortages, or one of the reasons why across the board we just don’t train enough physicians.

We have increased the number of medical school spots. We have people that are graduating from DO schools, as I said, international graduates. More are applying every year than we have space for. Which means that, yes, right now every spot will fill, because if the alternative for somebody applying is, look, I either won’t get in and actually be able to train in my specialty of choice. Or, I may have to go to my third choice or 10th choice or 50th choice or 100th choice. I’d rather go to someplace than no place at all.

So yes, everything is filling, but our look at the U.S. MD seniors was in part because we believe that they are the most competitive applicants, and in some ways the most desirable applicants. They have a 95% success in the match year after year. And so we thought they would be the most sensitive to look at in terms of, hey, I’ve got a little more choice here. Maybe I won’t apply to that state where I don’t feel like I can practice medicine freely for my patients.

And I think that’s a potential problem for a lot of these states and a lot of these programs is, if the people who might’ve been applying if the laws were different, who happened to be a better match for your program, for your specialty and your community, aren’t choosing to apply there, yes, you can fill it, but maybe not with the ideal candidate. And I think that’s going to affect patients and populations and local communities in the years to come.

Rovner: When we saw the beginning of this trend last year most of the talk was about a potential shortage of OB-GYNs going forward, since physicians often stay in practice where it is that they do their residency. But now, as you mentioned, we’re seeing a decrease in applications and specialties across the board. Why would that be?

Grover: So this is an informed opinion as to why people across specialties are choosing not to apply to residencies in these states. We didn’t ask the specific people who are matching this past year, “Why did you choose to apply or not to apply to this state?”

So what we know, though, from asking questions in other surveys is that about 70% of all health professions and health profession students believe that abortion should be legal at some point during a pregnancy. If you look at some specialties like adolescent medicine, that number goes up to 96%. So No. 1, I think it’s a potential violation of what people believe should be some freedom between doctors and patients as to allowing them to have the full range of reproductive health care.

No. 2, I think the potential penalties and the laws are often viewed as being incredibly punitive and somewhat unclear. And as much as doctors hate getting sued, we really don’t want to be indicted. I know some people are fine getting indicted. We really don’t want to be indicted. And that has implications because if we’re indicted, if we’re convicted of any kind of criminal offense, we could lose our license and not be able to care for patients. And we have a long investment in trying to do so.

The third thing that I think is relevant is certainly some of the specialties we’re looking at are heavily populated by women physicians, so OB-GYN, pediatrics. But again, across the board, it’s 50% women. So I think for the women themselves that happen to be applying, there is this issue of, think about their ages, 26, 27, 28 to the mid-30s, for the most part, and there are outliers on either end. But for the most part, they are of reproductive age, and I think they want to have control over their own lives and their own health care, and make sure that all services are available to them and their families if they need it. And I think even if it’s not relevant to you as an individual, it probably is relevant to your spouse or partner or somebody else in your family. And I think that makes a huge difference when people make these choices.

Rovner: So in the end, assuming these trends continue, I mean there really is concern for what the health professional community will look like in some of these states, right?

Grover: Yeah, and I think one of the things that I tried to look at last year in an editorial for JAMA was trying to overlay the states that have already significant challenges in recruiting and retaining physicians. They tend to be a lot of the heavily rural states, Southern states, parts of the Midwest. You overlay that on a map of the 14 states now that have basically banned abortion, and there’s a pretty close match.

So I think it’s critically important for state, local officials, legislatures, governors to think about their own potential impact of passing these laws on something that they may think is critically important, which is recruiting and retaining health professionals. And as you said, about half of people who train in a state will end up staying there to practice.

And for these pipeline programs, I know places like Mississippi and Alabama will really try and recruit individuals from underserved communities, get them through high school, get them into college, get them to stay in the state for med school, stay in the state for residency. They’re 80% likely to stay in those states. You lose them at any point along the way and they’re a lot less likely to come back.

So without even telling these states, I can’t tell you what’s good for you, but you should at least figure out how to collect the data at a local level to understand the implications of your policies on the health of everybody in a state, not just women of reproductive age.

Rovner: And I assume that we’ll be hearing more about this.

Grover: I would think so, yes.

Rovner: And asking more students about it.

Grover: Yes, we will. And we get to administer something called the Graduation Questionnaire every year for all these MD students. One of the questions we just added, and hopefully we’ll have some data, my colleagues will have that by probably August or so, is asking them specifically: What role did laws around some of these social issues have in your choice of where to do your residency? And again, there is some overlap here of states that have restricted reproductive rights, transgender care, and some other issues that are probably all kind of mixed in.

Rovner: Great. We’ll have you back to talk about it then.

Grover: Great. And I’m happy to come back and talk about market consolidation, about life expectancy, the quality of U.S. health, or anything else you want.

Rovner: Atul Grover, thank you so much.

Grover: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.

Sandhya, why don’t you go ahead and go first this week?

Raman: Great. So my story is from Ben Conarck at The Baltimore Banner, and it’s called “.”

This is a really sad and impactful story about Montgomery County, Maryland, which is just outside of 听D.C., and how they are leading to this problem in this state. And many people are on the wait list for beds and psychiatric facilities, but they’re serving pretty short sentences of 90 days or less, and just a lot of the issues there. And just the problems for criminal defendants waiting in facilities for months on end for treatment.

Rovner: And I would add, because I live there, Montgomery County, Maryland, is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, and it’s kind of embarrassing that there are people who are not where they should be because they don’t have enough beds. Alice.

Ollstein: I have a piece from Time magazine called “鈥.” And it’s about something that I’ve been hearing about from providers for a bit now, which is that IUDs are this very effective form of birth control. It’s a device implanted in the uterus, and it was supposed to be this amazing way to help people avoid unwanted pregnancies. But as with many things, it is being used coercively, according to this report.

Because a physician has to implant it and remove it, people say that, one, they were pressured into having one often right after giving birth when they were sort of not in a place to make that kind of big decision. And then people who were given one struggled to have someone remove it when they wanted that done in the future.

And so I think it’s a good reminder that these tools are not inherently good or inherently bad. They can be used unethically or ethically by providers.

Rovner: And all reproductive health care is fraught. Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. So Nick has been on quite the tear this week. My colleague Nick Florko at Stat and I wanted to highlight a profile that he wrote. The headline is, “.”

And I think it just has so much nuance into just a figure who fought Big Tobacco to bring to light what they were doing over decades. And now he’s chosen to take over this organization that had, in the past, been entirely funded by a tobacco company. And so I think it’s this really interesting 鈥 what we see all the time in Washington, how people contort themselves to make that transition into the private sector, or what they choose to do with their careers after public service. This is a nontraditional public service, obviously, being an advocate in this way. But I think it will be a really interesting dynamic to watch to see how much he chooses to change the direction of the organization, how long that arrangement lasts, if he chooses to do that.

I learned a lot reading this profile, and I think it’s even more rare to see people sit down for lengthy interviews for an old-fashioned profile. So I really enjoyed the piece.

Rovner: Full disclosure, I’ve known Cliff Douglas since the 1980s when he was just a young advocate starting out on his antismoking career. It really is good piece. I also thought Nick did a really good job.

Well, my story this week is from the NPR Shots blog. It’s by Jonathan Lambert and it’s called “.” And it made me feel much better for often being the only person in a room taking notes by hand in a notebook when everyone else is on their laptop. In fact, I can type as fast as anyone, and I can definitely type faster than I can write in longhand, but I actually find I take better notes if I have to boil down what I’m listening to. And it turns out there’s science that bears that out. Now, if only we could get the schools to go back to teaching cursive, but that’s a whole different issue.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. And happy birthday today to half of my weekly live audience: Aspen the corgi turns 4 today.

As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X or Twitter, whatever you want to call it, . Sandhya, where are you?

Raman: .

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: .

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs Zhang: .

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts,听click here.

And subscribe to 素人色情片Health News’ “What the Health?” on听,听,听, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1852751
California鈥檚 $12 Billion Medicaid Makeover Banks on Nonprofits鈥 Buy-In /news/article/newsom-medicaid-12-billion-dollar-makeover-nonprofits-bureacracy-calaim/ Thu, 16 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1851987 TURLOCK, Calif. 鈥 For much of his young life, Jorge Sanchez regularly gasped for air, at times coughing so violently that he’d almost throw up. His mother whisked him to the emergency room late at night and slept with him to make sure he didn’t stop breathing.

“He’s had these problems since he was born, and I couldn’t figure out what was triggering his asthma,” Fabiola Sandoval said of her son, Jorge, now 4. “It’s so hard when your child is hurting. I was willing to try anything.”

In January, community health workers visited Sandoval’s home in Turlock, a city in California’s Central Valley where dust from fruit and nut orchards billows through the air. They scoured Sandoval’s home for hazards and explained that harsh cleaning products, air fresheners, and airborne dust and pesticides can trigger an asthma attack.

The team also provided Sandoval with air purifiers, a special vacuum cleaner that can suck dust out of the air, hypoallergenic mattress covers, and a humidity sensor 鈥 goods that retail for hundreds of dollars. Within a few months, Jorge was breathing easier and was able to run and play outside.

The in-home consultation and supplies were paid for by Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid health insurance program for low-income residents. Gov. Gavin Newsom is spearheading an ambitious to transform Medi-Cal into both a health insurer and a social services provider, one that relies not only on doctors and nurses, but also community health workers and nonprofit groups that offer dozens of services, including delivering healthy meals and helping homeless people pay for housing.

These groups are redefining health care in California as they compete with businesses for a share of the money, and become a new arm of the sprawling Medi-Cal bureaucracy that serves low-income residents on an annual budget of $158 billion.

But worker shortages, negotiations with health insurance companies, and learning to navigate complex billing and technology systems have hamstrung the community groups’ ability to deliver the new services: Now into the third year of the ambitious five-year experiment, only a small fraction of eligible patients have received benefits.

“This is still so new, and everyone is just overwhelmed at this point, so it’s slow-going,” said Kevin Hamilton, a senior director at the Central California Asthma Collaborative.

The collaborative has served about 3,650 patients, including Sandoval, in eight counties since early 2022, he said. It has years of experience with Medi-Cal patients in the Central Valley and has received about $1.5 million of the new initiative’s money.

By contrast, CalOptima Health, Orange County’s primary Medi-Cal insurer, is new to offering asthma benefits and has signed up 58 patients so far.

“Asthma services are so difficult to get going” because the nonprofit infrastructure for these services is virtually nonexistent, said Kelly Bruno-Nelson, CalOptima’s executive director for Medi-Cal. “We need more community-based organizations on board because they’re the ones who can serve a population that nobody wants to deal with.”

Newsom, a Democrat in his second term, says his signature health care initiative, , seeks to reduce the cost of caring for the state’s sickest and most vulnerable patients, including homeless Californians, foster children, former inmates, and people battling addiction disorders.

In addition to in-home asthma remediation, CalAIM offers of social services, plus a benefit connecting eligible patients with one-on-one care managers to help them obtain anything they need to get healthier, from grocery shopping to finding a job.

The 25 managed-care insurance companies participating in Medi-Cal can choose which services they offer, and contract with community groups to provide them. Insurers have hammered out about 4,300 large and small contracts with nonprofits and businesses.

So far, about 103,000 Medi-Cal patients have received CalAIM services and roughly 160,000 have been assigned personal care managers, , a sliver of the hundreds of thousands of patients who likely qualify.

“We’re all new to health care, and a lot of this is such a foreign concept,” said Helena Lopez, executive director of , a nonprofit organization providing social services in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, such as handing out baseball cleats to children to help them be active.

Tiffany Sickler runs , which offers California foster children mental health and other types of care, and even helped a patient pay off parking tickets. But the program is struggling on a shoestring budget.

“If you want to do this, you have to learn all these new systems. It’s been a huge learning curve, and very time-consuming and frustrating, especially without adequate funding,” she said.

Brandon Richards, a Newsom spokesperson, defended CalAIM, saying that it was “on the cutting edge of health care” and that the state was working to increase “awareness of these new services and support.”

For nonprofits and businesses, CalAIM is a money-making opportunity 鈥 one that top state health officials hope to make permanent. Health insurers, which receive hefty payments from the state to serve more people and offer new services, share a portion with service providers.

In some places, community groups are competing with national corporations for the new funding, such as Mom’s Meals, an Iowa-based company that delivers prepared meals across the United States.

Mom’s Meals has an advantage over neighborhood nonprofit groups because it has long served seniors on Medicare and was able to immediately start offering the CalAIM benefit of home-delivered meals for patients with chronic diseases. But even Mom’s Meals isn’t reaching everyone who qualifies, because doctors and patients don’t always know it’s an option, said Catherine Macpherson, the company’s chief nutrition officer.

“Utilization is not as high as it should be yet,” she said. “But we were well positioned, because we already had departments to do billing and contracting with health care.”

Middleman companies also have their eye on the billions of CalAIM dollars and are popping up to assist small organizations to go up against established ones like Mom’s Meals. For instance, the New York-based is advising homeless service providers how to get more contracts and expand benefits.

, with 70 member organizations, is helping smaller nonprofit groups develop and deliver services primarily for families and foster children. Full Circle has signed a deal with Kaiser Permanente, allowing the health care giant to access its network of community groups.

“We’re allowing organizations to launch these benefits much faster than they’ve been able to do and to reach more vulnerable people,” said Camille Schraeder, chief executive of Full Circle. “Many of these are grassroots organizations that have the trust and expertise on the ground, but they’re new to health care.”

One of the biggest challenges community groups face is hiring workers, who are key to finding eligible patients and persuading them to participate.

Kathryn Phillips, a workforce expert at the California Health Care Foundation, said there isn’t enough seed money for community groups to hire workers and pay for new technology platforms. “They bring the trust that is needed, the cultural competency, the diversity of languages,” she said. “But there needs to be more funding and reimbursement to build this workforce.”

Health insurers say they are trying to increase the workforce. For instance, L.A. Care Health Plan, the largest Medi-Cal insurer in California, has given $66 million to community organizations for hiring and other CalAIM needs, said Sameer Amin, the group’s chief medical officer.

“They don’t have the staffing to do all this stuff, so we’re helping with that all while teaching them how to build up their health care infrastructure,” he said. “Everyone wants a win, but this isn’t going to be successful overnight.”

In the Central Valley, Jorge Sanchez is one of the lucky early beneficiaries of CalAIM.

His mother credits the trust she established with community health workers, who spent many hours over multiple visits to teach her how to control her son’s asthma.

“I used to love cleaning with bleach” but learned it can trigger breathing problems, Sandoval said.

Since she implemented the health workers’ recommendations, Sandoval has been able to let Jorge sleep alone at night for the first time in four years.

“Having this program and all the things available is amazing,” said Sandoval, as she pointed to the dirty dust cup in her new vacuum cleaner. “Now my son doesn’t have as many asthma attacks and he can run around and be a normal kid.”

This article was produced by 素人色情片Health News, which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1851987
Addiction Treatment Homes Say Montana鈥檚 Funding Fixes Don鈥檛 Go Far Enough /news/article/montana-addiction-treatment-homes-facilities-funding/ Thu, 16 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1852395 Montana health officials have started a voucher system to help people with substance use disorders move into transitional housing as they rebuild their lives. But those who run the clinical houses said the new money isn’t enough to fix a financial hole after a prior state revamp.

Residential treatment facilities are usually nondescript homes tucked into neighborhoods. The state’s lowest-intensity homes can provide people with alcohol and drug addiction leaving inpatient care a bridge to independent living. They’re the final option of four tiers of clinical housing and aim to offer residents stability amid daily stressors.

But these particular houses have been disappearing 鈥 down to 10 sites today from 14 in 2022. That was the year the state started paying providers a blanket rate for their services through Medicaid, the state-federal program for people with low incomes and disabilities. At the same time, the state increased the homes’ staffing requirements.

State health department officials lauded the 2022 change as an expansion in access to care, saying it increased the houses’ pay and matched the cost to operate. But providers warned at the time that it could backfire because the rates weren’t high enough to cover the new staffing rules.

Terri Russell, who runs John “Scott” Hannon House, a treatment home in Helena, said it has been hard to break even since, and she’s watched other sites close under financial pressure.

“It’s the hardest thing in the world to watch a person leave treatment and go back down to the homeless shelter, or go on the street,” Russell said.

The new voucher program could help fill in some of the gap, Russell said. Approved by the state in April, it pays low-intensity treatment residences to house uninsured people as they sign up for Medicaid or other health coverage. The idea is to reduce barriers to care for vulnerable patients at a key point in their recovery. But the money is capped at $35 a day, with a $1,000 limit per resident a year.

“It’s like it was somebody’s idea for a band-aid,” said Demetrius Fassas, who runs Butte Spirit Homes, which has two eight-bed facilities.

He said the payments fall well below the cost of providing care. And, because of the vouchers’ cap, the aid could run out weeks before someone knows whether they qualify for Medicaid coverage.

Low-intensity programs vary in how long patients stay; it could be a few months or more than a year. Fassas said when things go as intended, clients find stable jobs. That success can lead to residents earning too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford the full cost of care.

Providers have said funding issues are widespread for substance use disorder programs but that shortfalls especially hit these low-intensity homes. The tension in Montana mirrors challenges elsewhere around how to fund transitional treatment so that patients don’t fall off a cliff in their recovery because care is unavailable.

As of 2022, at least 33 states were using money from Medicaid to help run residential treatment programs, . Federal rules prohibit Medicaid dollars from going to room and board at transitional homes, though states can chip in their own money. In North Dakota, for example, lawmakers set aside state funds for a voucher program that addresses treatment barriers, which include the cost of room and board.

Montana once was among the states that let providers seek help covering room and board costs for its poorer residents. The money came from federal grants the state manages for addiction treatment and prevention.

But those room and board grants stopped when Montana’s health department shifted to higher, bundled Medicaid rates in 2022. According to , reducing the block grants to the low-intensity homes allowed officials to put that money toward other “prevention priorities.”

The new rules the state added at the same time brought the residential facilities up to American Society of Addiction Medicine standards. That included having on-site clinical services, a clinical director for each home, and an employee working anytime a resident was in the home, including night shifts.

Fassas, of Butte Spirit Homes, called the rules bittersweet. They increased the quality of care. But, Fassas said, he had to hire six additional workers to comply with the rules and the company now runs at a loss if he doesn’t find additional grants.

Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, said the new rates, $143 a day per Medicaid resident, were developed by a state-paid contractor as part of Montana’s effort to match the cost of care.

Ebelt said administrative costs were factored into the state’s Medicaid rate, and that traditional room and board expenses typically fall into that category.

Low-intensity homes’ rates haven’t increased since they went into place in 2022.

Malcolm Horn, chief behavioral health officer for the Rimrock Foundation, said the facilities need more help in covering expenses like the mortgage, repairs to the home, or feeding residents.

The Rimrock Foundation, which is based in Billings, is one of Montana’s largest mental health providers. Horn said after the new rules were implemented, Rimrock converted one of its two low-intensity homes for women with children into high-intensity housing, which pays more. The switch displaced families in the low-intensity program.

“We couldn’t actually sustain having both those houses,” Horn said.

Montana officials for the voucher program and estimated that money would help cover initial housing for 329 people in 2024.

Terri Todd, who runs the nonprofit Gratitude in Action in Billings for people in recovery, advocated for the program during the 2023 legislative session. She said the goal had been to follow North Dakota’s model to help cover addiction care for people facing barriers. But Montana lawmakers scaled that back, which Todd attributed to concerns about cost.

Todd said that while what survived the legislature is less than what she had hoped for, the voucher program is still a start in addressing barriers to care.

State Rep. Mike Yakawich, the Republican who proposed the program, said it was initially so broad, he learned, it overlapped with some existing efforts. But he said state staffers told him the low-intensity group homes’ room and board costs were an area that could use more funding.

Yakawich said securing any money felt like a win in a funding tug-of-war. More help to stabilize the state’s mental health system is coming.

Money for the vouchers is coming out of Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte’s HEART Fund initiative, which is due to invest about $25 million a year toward behavioral health programs. Separately, state that they’re creating grants to increase Montana’s bed capacity across residential facilities, including for substance use treatment providers. That money could go toward reopening closed facilities.

But Yakawich said even that infusion of money won’t provide enough to go around.

“Everybody wants a chunk of the pie, and not everyone’s going to get it,” he said.

The voucher program is scheduled to expire in three years, Yakawich said. By then, he said, maybe he can persuade lawmakers to renew the program 鈥 with more money.

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1852395
Why Medicaid鈥檚 鈥楿ndercount鈥 Problem Counts /news/article/health-202-millions-lost-medicaid-coverage-undercount/ Tue, 14 May 2024 13:56:34 +0000 /?p=1852301&post_type=article&preview_id=1852301 Millions of people were surprised to find themselves booted from Medicaid over the past year after pandemic-era protections expired that had prevented states from terminating their coverage.

Turns out, millions of them were also unaware they had been covered by the government program.

Nearly 1 in 3 people enrolled in Medicaid in 2022 鈥 or 26 million people 鈥 didn’t know it, according to by Harvard and New York University researchers published in Health Affairs this month.听

The report estimated that of those who didn’t know they were on Medicaid, about 3 million thought they were uninsured.

They almost certainly had coverage, though, because the federal government from March 2020 to April 2023 prohibited states from dropping anyone from Medicaid rolls in exchange for billions of dollars in pandemic relief money.

“What this means is people could have been accessing health-care services and probably did not because they thought they were uninsured,” said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the 素人色情片Program on Medicaid & Uninsured. “People not understanding that they have Medicaid is not a good thing.”

This lack of awareness has implications for efforts to predict how much the nation’s uninsured rate has changed as a result of the Medicaid “unwinding” 鈥 the process that began last year in which states redetermine whether people enrolled in the program since the pandemic unfolded remain eligible.

States have dropped about 22 million people from Medicaid in the past year, often for procedural reasons like failing to return paperwork. A found about 1 in 4 adults who were disenrolled from Medicaid a year ago remained uninsured.

One group enjoys some upside from Americans’ ignorance about their insurance coverage: the companies that administer Medicaid for most states, including UnitedHealthcare and Centene.听

States pay them a monthly fee for every person enrolled in their plans. But if people don’t know they’re insured, they’re less likely to seek health services 鈥 which means higher profits for the companies.

“Insurers reaped windfalls from this reality,” said Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute and a former health policy adviser to President . “People who are enrolled but don’t know they are enrolled receive no benefit from the program.”

In March 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported that about 88 million people had Medicaid coverage. But census survey data found about 62 million people self-reported Medicaid coverage 鈥 an undercount of 26.4 million, the study said.听

Several factors explain why enrollees may not realize they’re on Medicaid.

They don’t pay monthly premiums, so the cost of the coverage can be invisible. Because it’s administered by private insurers, many Medicaid recipients may believe they have commercial coverage. And states often market their Medicaid programs with a consumer-friendly name, like Husky Health in Connecticut or SoonerCare in Oklahoma.听

“Medicaid having different names should not lead people to think they are uninsured,” said Benjamin Sommers, a health economist at Harvard who was one of the study’s authors.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1852301
Medicaid 鈥楿nwinding鈥 Decried as Biased Against Disabled People /news/article/medicaid-unwinding-people-with-disabilities-home-health-benefits/ Tue, 14 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1846821 Jacqueline Saa has a genetic condition that leaves her unable to stand and walk on her own or hold a job. Every weekday for four years, Saa, 43, has relied on a home health aide to help her cook, bathe and dress, go to the doctor, pick up medications, and accomplish other daily tasks.

Have you or someone you know with disabilities unexpectedly lost Medicaid benefits since April 2023? Tell us about it .

She received coverage through Florida’s Medicaid program until it abruptly stopped at the end of March, she said.

“Every day the anxiety builds,” said Saa, who lost her home health aide for 11 days, starting April 1, despite being eligible. The state has since restored Saa’s home health aide service, but during the gap she leaned on her mother and her 23- and 15-year-old daughters, while struggling to regain her Medicaid benefits.

“It’s just so much to worry about,” she said. “This is a health care system that’s supposed to help.”

Medicaid’s home and community-based services are designed to help people like Saa, who have disabilities and need help with everyday activities, stay out of a nursing facility. But people are losing benefits with little or no notice, getting bad advice when they call for information, and facing major disruptions in care while they wait for the issue to get sorted out, according to attorneys and advocates who are hearing from patients.

In , , and ., the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit that advocates for low-income and underserved people, has filed civil rights complaints with two federal agencies alleging discrimination against people with disabilities. The group has not filed a lawsuit in Florida, though its attorneys say they’ve heard of many of the same problems there.

Attorneys nationwide say the special needs of disabled people were not prioritized as states began to review eligibility for Medicaid enrollees after a pandemic-era mandate for coverage expired in March 2023.

“Instead of monitoring and ensuring that people with disabilities could make their way through the process, they sort of treated them like everyone else with Medicaid,” said , a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program. Federal law puts an “obligation on states to make sure people with disabilities don’t get missed.”

At least 21 million people nationwide have been disenrolled from Medicaid since states began eligibility redeterminations in spring 2023, according to a .

The unwinding, as it’s known, is an immense undertaking, Edwards said, and some states did not take extra steps to set up a special telephone line for those with disabilities, for example, so people could renew their coverage or contact a case manager.

As states prepared for the unwinding, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that regulates Medicaid, that they must give people with disabilities the help they need to benefit from the program, including specialized communications for people who are deaf or blind.

The Florida Department of Children and Families, which verifies eligibility for the state’s Medicaid program, has a specialized team that processes applications for home health services, said , the department’s communications director.

People with disabilities disenrolled from Medicaid services were “properly noticed and either did not respond timely or no longer met financial eligibility requirements,” McManus said, noting that people “would have been contacted by us up to 13 times via phone, mail, email, and text before processing their disenrollment.”

Allison Pellegrin of Ormond Beach, Florida, who lives with her sister Rhea Whitaker, who is blind and cognitively disabled, said that never happened for her family.

“They just cut off the benefits without a call, without a letter or anything stating that the benefits would be terminating,” Pellegrin said. Her sister’s home health aide, whom she had used every day for nearly eight years, stopped service for 12 days. “If I’m getting everything else in the mail,” she said, “it seems weird that after 13 times I wouldn’t have received one of them.”

Pellegrin, 58, a sales manager who gets health insurance through her employer, took time off from work to care for Whitaker, 56, who was disabled by a severe brain injury in 2006.

Medicaid reviews have been complicated, in part, by the fact that eligibility works differently for home health services than for general coverage, based on that give states more flexibility to determine financial eligibility. Income limits for home health services are higher, for instance, and assets are counted differently.

In Texas, a parent in a household of three would be limited to earning no more than $344 a month to qualify for Medicaid. And most adults with a disability can qualify without a dependent child and be eligible for Medicaid home health services with an income of up to $2,800 a month.

The state was not taking that into consideration, said , a supervising attorney for community integration at Disability Rights Texas, a nonprofit advocacy group.

Even a brief lapse in Medicaid home health services can fracture relationships that took years to build.

“It may be very difficult for that person who lost that attendant to find another attendant,” Anstee said, because of workforce shortages for attendants and nurses and high demand.

Nearly all states have a waiting list for home health services. About were on waiting lists in 2023, most of them with intellectual and developmental disabilities, according to 素人色情片data.

Daniel Tsai, a deputy administrator at CMS, said the agency is committed to ensuring that people with disabilities receiving home health services “can renew their Medicaid coverage with as little red tape as possible.”

CMS this year for states to monitor Medicaid home health services. For example, CMS will now track how long it takes for people who need home health care to receive the services and will require states to track how long people are on waitlists.

Staff turnover and vacancies at local Medicaid agencies have contributed to backlogs, according to focused on civil rights.

The District of Columbia’s Medicaid agency requires that case managers help people with disabilities complete renewals. However, a complaint says, case managers are the only ones who can help enrollees complete eligibility reviews and, sometimes, they don’t do their jobs.

Advocates for Medicaid enrollees have also complained to the Federal Trade Commission about developed by Deloitte, a global consulting firm that contracts with about two dozen states to design, implement, or operate automated benefits systems.

素人色情片Health News found that multiple audits of Colorado’s eligibility system, managed by Deloitte, uncovered errors in notices sent to enrollees. A 2023 review by the Colorado Office of the State Auditor found that 90% of sampled notices contained problems, some of which violate the state’s Medicaid rules. The audit blamed “flaws in system design” for populating notices with incorrect dates.

Deloitte declined to comment on specific state issues.

In March, Colorado officials paused disenrollment for people on Medicaid who received home health services, which includes people with disabilities, after a “system update” led to in February.

Another common problem is people being told to reapply, which immediately cuts off their benefits, instead of appealing the cancellation, which would ensure their coverage while the claim is investigated, said attorney , founder of the Florida Health Justice Project.

“What they’re being advised to do is not appropriate. The best way to protect their legal rights,” Harmatz said, “is to file an appeal.”

But some disabled people are worried about having to repay the cost of their care.

Saa, who lives in Davie, Florida, received a letter shortly before her benefits were cut that said she “may be responsible to repay any benefits” if she lost her appeal.

The state should presume such people are still eligible and preserve their coverage, Harmatz said, because income and assets for most beneficiaries are not going to increase significantly and their conditions are not likely to improve.

The Florida Department of Children and Families would not say how many people with disabilities had lost Medicaid home health services.

But in Miami-Dade, Florida’s most populous county, the , a nonprofit that helps older and disabled people apply for Medicaid, saw requests for help jump from 58 in March to 146 in April, said , the organization’s director of its Aging and Disability Resources Center.

“So many people are calling us,” she said.

States are not tracking the numbers, so “the impact is not clear,” Edwards said. “It’s a really complicated struggle.”

Saa filed an appeal March 29 after learning from her social worker that her benefits would expire at the end of the month. She went to the agency but couldn’t stand in a line that was 100 people deep. Calls to the state’s Medicaid eligibility review agency were fruitless, she said.

“When they finally connected me to a customer service representative, she was literally just reading the same explanation letter that I’ve read,” Saa said. “I did everything in my power.”

Saa canceled her home health aide. She lives on limited Social Security disability income and said she could not afford to pay for the care.

On April 10, she received a letter from the state saying her Medicaid had been reinstated, but she later learned that her plan did not cover home health care.

The following day, Saa said, advocates put her in touch with a point person at Florida’s Medicaid agency who restored her benefits. A home health aide showed up April 12. Saa said she’s thankful but feels anxious about the future.

“The toughest part of that period is knowing that that can happen at any time,” she said, “and not because of anything I did wrong.”

Have you or someone you know with disabilities unexpectedly lost Medicaid benefits since April 2023? Tell 素人色情片Health News about it .

素人色情片Health News correspondents Samantha Liss and Rachana Pradhan contributed to this report.

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1846821
素人色情片Health News' 'What the Health?': Newly Minted Doctors Are Avoiding Abortion Ban States /news/podcast/what-the-health-346-abortion-ban-residency-decline-may-9-2024/ Thu, 09 May 2024 19:30:00 +0000 /?p=1850694&post_type=podcast&preview_id=1850694 The Host Julie Rovner 素人色情片Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 素人色情片Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

A new analysis finds that graduating medical students were less likely to apply this year for residency training in states that ban or restrict abortion. That was true not only for aspiring OB-GYNs and others who regularly treat pregnant patients, but for all specialties.

Meanwhile, another study has found that more than 4 million children have been terminated from Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program since the federal government ended a covid-related provision barring such disenrollments. The study estimates about three-quarters of those children were still eligible and were kicked off for procedural reasons.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 素人色情片Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and public health and Politico Magazine, and Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Panelists

Anna Edney Bloomberg Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico Lauren Weber The Washington Post

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • More medical students are avoiding applying to residency programs in states with abortion restrictions. That could worsen access problems in areas that already don’t have enough doctors and other health providers in their communities.
  • New threats to abortion care in the United States include not only state laws penalizing abortion pill possession and abortion travel, but also online misinformation campaigns 鈥 which are trying to discourage people from supporting abortion ballot measures by telling them lies about how their information might be used.
  • The latest news is out on the fate of Medicare, and a pretty robust economy appears to have bought the program’s trust fund another five years. Still, its overall health depends on a long-term solution 鈥 and a long-term solution depends on Congress.
  • In Medicaid expansion news, Mississippi lawmakers’ latest attempt to expand the program was unsuccessful, and a report shows two other nonexpansion states 鈥 Texas and Florida 鈥 account for about 40% of the 4 million kids who were dropped from Medicaid and CHIP last year. By not expanding Medicaid, holdout states say no to billions of federal dollars that could be used to cover health care for low-income residents.
  • Finally, the bankruptcy of the hospital chain Steward Health Care tells a striking story of what happens when private equity invests in health care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews 素人色情片Health News’ Katheryn Houghton, who reported and wrote the latest 素人色情片Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a patient who went outside his insurance network for a surgery and thought he had covered all his bases. It turned out he hadn’t. If you have an outrageous or incomprehensible medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The Nation’s “,” by Amy Littlefield.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “,” by Carl Elliott.

Anna Edney: ProPublica’s “,” by Anna Maria Barry-Jester.

Lauren Weber: Stat’s “,” by Nicholas Florko.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

Click to open the transcript Transcript: Newly Minted Doctors Are Avoiding Abortion Ban States

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 素人色情片Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 9, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello. Hello.

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hi there.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with 素人色情片Health News’ Katheryn Houghton, who reported and wrote the latest 素人色情片Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient went out of network for surgery and thought he did everything right. Things went wrong anyway. But first, this week’s news. We are going to start again with abortion this week with a segment I’m calling, “The kids are all right, but they don’t want to settle in states with abortion bans.”

This morning we got the numbers from the Association of American Medical Colleges on the latest residency match. And while applications for residency positions were down in general 鈥 more on that in a minute 鈥 for the second year in a row, they were down considerably more in states with abortion bans, and to a lesser extent, in states with other abortion restrictions, like gestational limits. And it’s not just in OB-GYN and other specialties that interact regularly with pregnant people. It appears that graduating medical students are trying to avoid abortion ban states across the board. This could well play out in ways that have nothing to do with abortion but a lot more to do with the future of the medical workforce in some of those states.

Edney: I think that’s a really good point. We know that even on just a shortage of primary care physicians and if you’re in a rural area already and you aren’t getting enough of those coming 鈥 because you could end up dealing with these issues in primary care and ER care and many other sections where it’s not just dealing with pregnant women all the time, but a woman comes in because it’s the first place she can go when she’s miscarrying or something along those lines. So it could lower the workforce for everybody, not just pregnant women.

Rovner: A lot of these graduating medical students are of the age where they want to start their own families. If not them, they’re worried about their partners. Somebody also pointed out to me 鈥 this isn’t even in my story 鈥 that graduating medical students tend to wait longer to have their children, so they tend to be at higher risk when they are pregnant. So that’s another thing that makes them worry about being in states where if something goes wrong, they would have trouble getting emergency care.

Weber: I would just add, I mean, you know, a lot of these states also overlap with states that have severe health professional shortages as well. You know, my reporting in St. Louis for 素人色情片Health News 鈥 we did a lot of work on how there are just huge physician shortages to start with. So the idea that you’re combining massive gaps in primary care or massive gaps in reproductive health deserts with folks that are going to choose not to go to these places is really a double whammy that I don’t necessarily think people fully grasp at this current point in time.

Rovner: I promised I would explain the reason that applications are down. This is something that’s happening on purpose. There are still more graduating medical students from MD programs and DO [Doctor of Osteopathy] programs and international medical graduates than there are residency slots, but graduating students had been applying to literally dozens and dozens of residencies to make sure they got matched somewhere, and they’re trying to deter that. So now I think students are applying to an average of 30 programs instead of an average of 60 programs.

That’s why it takes so long for them to crunch the numbers because everybody’s doing multiple applications in multiple states and it’s hard to sort the whole thing out. Of course, it may be that they don’t need all of those doctors. Because according to a separate survey from CNBC and Generation Lab, 62% of those surveyed said they probably wouldn’t or definitely wouldn’t live in a state that banned abortion. Seriously, at some point, these states are going to have to balance their state economies against their abortion positions. Now we’re talking about not just the medical workforce, but the entire workforce, .

Edney: Yeah. I was thinking about this recently because during the pandemic you had tech or Wall Street companies looking at Texas or Florida for where they wanted to move their headquarters or move a substantial amount of their company. And then when Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] happened, how is the workforce going to play out? I’m curious what that ends up looking like because many of the people that might want to work for those companies might not want to live there in those states, and I think it could affect how the country is made up at some point. I think what’s still to play out is that over 60% that wouldn’t want to move to a state with abortion restrictions, whether that is something that plays out or whether some people say, “Well, that job’s really good, so maybe I do want to go make a lot more money in this place or whenever.” I’m curious how all of this I think, you know, over the next five years or something, plays out.

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, at some point, this something is better than nothing, that’s true of the residency numbers, too. If the only place you can match is in a state that you’d rather not go, I think most people would rather go somewhere than not be able to pursue their career, and I suspect that’s true for people in other lines of work as well. Well, meanwhile, anti-abortion states are continuing to push the envelope as far as they can. In Louisiana, legislation is moving, it passed the Senate already, to criminalize the act of ordering abortion pills from out of state. It’s scheduling mifepristone and misoprostol in the same category as opioids and other addictive drugs.

Simple possession of either abortion drug without a prescription could result in a $5,000 fine or five years in prison. And in a wild story out of Texas, the ex-partner of a woman who traveled to Colorado for an abortion is attempting to pursue against anyone who helped her, by helping her with travel or providing money or anything else associated with the abortion. Both of these cases seem like they’re trying to more chill people from attempting to obtain abortions than they are really actually pursuing legal action, right?

Kenen: Well, in that case, he’s pursuing legal action. We don’t know how that’s playing out, but I mean, it’s this accumulation of barriers and threats and making it both more difficult and more risky to obtain an out-of-state abortion or obtain medication abortion in-state. But there’s a big thicket and a lot of it, because it’s in court and it takes years to straighten things out, we don’t know what the final landscape’s going to look like, but obviously the trend is toward greater restriction.

Rovner: And I would point out that the lawyer who’s representing the ex-partner who’s trying to find everyone involved with the ex-partner’s abortion is the lawyer who brought us SB 8 [Senate Bill 8] the law, the “bounty hunter law,” that makes it a crime for people to aid and abet somebody getting an abortion in Texas. Lauren.

Weber: Yeah. I just would add too that tactics like this, whether or not 鈥 however they do play out in court, they do have a deterrence effect, right? There’s no way to absolutely tell someone XYZ is legally safe or not. At the end of the day, that can lead to a heck of a lot of misinformation, misconceptions, and different life choices. So I mean, I think the different things that Joanne and Julie are describing lead to people making different choices as all this plays out.

Kenen: I think one of the stories that Julie shared this week 鈥 there was an interesting little aside about disinformation, which is the petition to get an abortion rights ballot initiative in, I think it was Missouri. And one of the things in that article was that the anti-abortion forces were telling people that if you sign this petition, you’re vulnerable to identity theft. Now, so that is not true, but it’s just like this misinformation world we’re living in is spilling over into things like, you know, democratic issues of, “Can you get something on the ballot in your state?” It may lose. Missouri is a very conservative state. I don’t know what the threshold is for passage there. I don’t know that it’s as high as the 60% in Florida. But who knows what’s going to happen?

Rovner: That story was interesting, though, because it was the anti-abortion groups were trying to get people not just to not sign the petition.

Kenen: Unsign.

Rovner: Right. They were trying to get people to take their signatures off. And when all was said and done, they had twice as many signatures as they needed to get it on the ballot, so it will be on the ballot. I don’t know either what the threshold is in Missouri ’cause they were playing with that. Lauren, do you know?

Weber: I don’t know what the threshold is, but I will say what I found interesting about that story was that they said they were going to activate the Catholic Church. And as someone who is Catholic and went to Mass during the Missouri eras of Todd Akin and the stem cell fights, activating the Catholic Church could be very effective on changing how the abortion ballot plays out because I’ve seen what that looks like. So I’ll be very curious to see how that plays out in the weeks and months to come.

Kenen: Right. States doing physician-assisted suicide, aid-in-dying bills, have also 鈥 people fighting them have activated the church and they’re quite effective.

Rovner: Yeah. But I think Ohio also activated the Catholic Church and it didn’t work out. So I mean, we obviously know from polling Catholics, they’re certainly in favor of contraception and more American Catholics are in favor of abortion rights than I think their priests would like to know, at least that’s what they tell pollsters.

Edney: I also think that activating the church, whatever church it is, is at least a above-the-board tactic where in a lot of ways you never know, but this was so scary because they’re really going out and, not assaulting, but like verbally trying to keep these people from even being able to get signatures, saying that why should we let people vote on something that’s bad for them. Like not giving the electorate the right to make their voices heard. It was pretty scary to see that because of things like Ohio and other abortion rights movements that won that this is what they’re resorting to to try to make sure Missouri goes a different way.

Rovner: Yeah. I think this is going to be a really interesting year to watch because there are so many of them. Well, in abortion travel news, a federal district judge in Alabama green-lighted a suit by abortion rights groups against the state’s attorney general, who was threatening to prosecute those who “aid and abet” Alabama residents trying to leave the state for an abortion. “The right to interstate travel is one of our most fundamental constitutional rights,” Judge Myron Thompson wrote. On the other hand, Idaho was in federal appeals court in Seattle this week arguing just the opposite. They want to have an injunction lifted on its law that would make it a crime to help a minor cross state lines for an abortion. So I guess this particular fight about whether states can have control over their residents’ trying to leave the state for reproductive health care is a fight that’s going to continue for a while.

Edney: I mean, I think that 鈥 and sure it’ll continue for a while 鈥 you know, my thought when hearing about these cases is sort of just like, I know people that, when there wasn’t really gambling in Maryland, that would get in the bus and the seniors would all go to Delaware and go to the casino and go gambling. Like, we do this all the time. We go to other states for other things 鈥 for alcohol, in some cases. It’s just interesting that now they’re trying to make sure that people can’t do that when it comes to women’s rights.

Rovner: Yeah. I know. I mean, there are lots of things that are legal in some states and not legal in others.

Edney: Right.

Rovner: This seems to be, again, pushing the envelope to places we have not yet seen. Well, moving on, it is May, which means it’s time for the annual report of the Medicare and Social Security trustees about the financial solvency of the trust funds, and the news is good, sort of. Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund can now pay full benefits until 2036. That’s five years more than the trustees estimated last year, thanks largely to a strong economy, more people paying payroll taxes, and fewer people seeking expensive medical care. But of course, Washington being Washington, good news is also bad news because it makes it less likely that Congress will take on the distasteful task of figuring out how to keep the program solvent for the long term. Are we ever going to get to this or is Congress just going to kick the can down the road until it’s like next year that the trust fund’s going bankrupt?

Kenen: I mean, of all the can-kicking 鈥 you know, we’ve used that phrase about Congress frequently 鈥 this is the distillation of the essence of kicking the can when it comes to entitlements, right? Both Social Security and Medicare need congressional action to make them viable and sustainable and secure for decades, not years, and we don’t expect that to happen. I mean, even when things are less partisan than they are now, because obviously we’re in a hyperpartisan era, even when Washington functioned better, this was still a kick-the-can issue. Not only was it kick the can, but everybody fought over how to kick the can and where to kick the can and who could kick it furthest. So five extra years is a long time. I mean, it is. But again, the economy changes. Tax revenues change. It’s a cyclical economy. Next year, we could lose the five years or lose two years or gain one year. Who knows? But in terms of a sustained, bipartisan, sensible 鈥 no, I’m not holding my breath, because I would get very, very red, very fast.

Rovner: Yeah. And also, I mean, the thing about fixing both Medicare and Social Security is that somebody has to pay more. Either there will be fewer benefits or more taxes, or in the case of Medicare, providers will be paid less. So somebody ends up unhappy. Usually in these compromises, everybody ends up a little bit unhappy. That’s kind of the best possible world. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to add that if it goes insolvent by 2036, it’s not looking very good for my ability to access these programs.

Kenen: But they always fix it. They always fix it. They just fix it at the last minute.

Weber: That’s true. I mean, I think that’s a fair point, but I do think overall, the concern, it does seem like something will have to change. I don’t think that when I 鈥 hope, God willing 鈥 live long enough to access this Medicare benefits, that I think they’ll look very different. Because when there is a compromise or there is something like this, there’s just no way the program can continue as it is, currently.

Kenen: The other thing though is this Medicare date probably means there’ll be less campaign. You know, it was beginning to bubble up a little bit on the presidential campaign. I mean, there were plenty of other health care issues to fight about, but it probably means that there’ll be a little bit of token talk about saving Medicare and so forth, but unlikely that there will become a really hot-button issue with either Trump or Biden putting out a detailed plan about it. There’ll be some verbal, “Yes, I’ll protect Medicare,” but I don’t think it’ll be elevated. If it was the other way, if it had lost five years or lost three years, then we would’ve had yet another Medicare election. I think probably we won’t.

Rovner: Yeah. I think that’s exactly right. If the insolvency date had gotten closer, it would’ve been a bigger issue.

Kenen: And remember that the trend toward Medicare Advantage, which is more than people had anticipated, I mean, it is revolutionizing what Medicare looks like. It’s more than half the people now. So there’s many, many sub-cans to kick on that, with private equity and access and prior authorization. I mean, there’s a million things going on there, and payment rates and everything, but that is a slow-motion, dramatic change to Med[icare], not so slow, but that is a dramatic change to Medicare.

Rovner: We’re figuring out how to do sort of a special episode just on Medicare Advantage because there’s so much there. But meanwhile, let’s catch up on Medicaid, ’cause it’s been a while. As one of my colleagues put it on Slack this week, it was a swing and a miss in Mississippi, where some pretty serious efforts to expand Medicaid came to naught as the legislature closed the books on its 2024 session last week. Mississippi is one of the 10 remaining states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which could expand health coverage to an estimated 200,000 low-income residents there who lack it now. It feels like these last states, mostly in the South, are going to hold out as long as they can, even though they’re basically giving up a gigantic handout from the federal government.

Edney: It’s billions of dollars they’re leaving on the table and it doesn’t really make sense. This seemed to maybe come down to a work requirement. Maybe there was more there. It was more of a poison pill in that Senate bill instead, but it doesn’t seem to make sense. I mean, even one of the earlier bills the Senate in Mississippi had come up with would have left billions of dollars on the table as well. So I think the idea of this being the central part of Obamacare is still strong in some places.

Kenen: And it also is worth pointing out that these are states not just with the gap in coverage, but most of these states don’t have great health status. They have a lot of chronic disease, a lot of obesity, a lot of addiction, a lot of diabetes, etc. The se are not the healthiest states in the country. You’re not just leaving money on the table; you’re leaving an opportunity to get people care on the table and 鈥

Rovner: And exacerbating health inequities that we already have.

Kenen: Yes. Yes. And when North Carolina decided to, which took many years of arguing about it 鈥 that’s a purple state; there were some people who thought it would be a domino: OK, North Carolina stopped holding out; the rest of the South will now. I, never having reported in North Carolina on that, you know, having spent time in the state, I never thought it was a domino. I thought it was just something that went on in North Carolina. Do I think eventually most or all of them will accept Medicaid? Yes. But, you know, we’ve mentioned this before: It took almost 20 years for the original Medicaid to go to all 50 states.

And it’s not just 鈥 because North Carolina is North Carolina and South Carolina is different. They have different dynamics. And it’s not over by any means, and there’s no 鈥 Mississippi got close. Are they going to pick up where they left off and sort it out next year? Who knows? There’s elections between now and then. We don’t know what the makeup and who is the driver of this, and which chamber there, and who’s retiring, and who’s going to get reelected. We just don’t know exactly. It’s not going to be a dramatic shift, but in these close fights, a couple of seats shifting in state government can change things.

Rovner: That’s what happened in Kansas, although Wyoming came close, I think it was a couple of years ago, and then there I haven’t seen any action either, so.

Kenen: You still hear talk about Wyoming considering it. Like, that’s not off the 鈥 I don’t think any of us would be totally shocked if Wyoming is the next one, but I mean it didn’t happen this year, so.

Rovner: Well the other continuing Medicaid story is the “unwinding,” dropping those from coverage who were kept on during the pandemic emergency by a federal requirement. A new report from the Georgetown Center for Children and Families finds that as of the end of 2023, the number of children covered by Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program was down by 10%, or about 4 million. Yet an estimated three-quarters of those kids are actually still eligible. They were struck from the rolls because of a breakdown in paperwork. Texas alone was responsible for more than a million of those disenrollments, a quarter of the total. Texas and Florida together accounted for nearly 40% of those dropped. And Texas and Florida are also the largest states that haven’t expanded Medicaid to the working poor. At some point the problem with the uninsured is going to be back on our radar, right? I mean, we haven’t talked about it for a while because we haven’t sort of needed to talk about it for a while because uninsurance rate has been the lowest it’s been since we’ve been keeping track.

Weber: I just can’t get over that three-quarters of kids lost their coverage due to paperwork issues. I mean, I know we talk about it many times on this podcast, but just to go back to it again: I miss mail. We all miss mail. I’m not someone also that’s moving frequently. That would make it easier to miss mail. I mean, that is just 鈥

Kenen: You speak English.

Weber: Yeah, and I speak English. That is a wild stat, that 75% of these children lost this coverage because of paperwork issues. And as that report discusses, you know, some states did work to mitigate that and other states worked to not mitigate it. And I think that’s an important distinction to be clear about.

Rovner: And I will link to the report because the report shows the huge difference in states, the ones that sort of did it slowly and carefully. I think the part of it that made my hair stand on end was not so much the kids who came off because, you know, the whole family did, because the paperwork issues, but it’s the kids, particularly kids in CHIP who were still eligible when their parents aren’t. And there were some states that just struck families entirely because the parents were no longer eligible without realizing in their own state that parents’ eligibility and kids’ eligibility isn’t the same. And that apparently happened in a lot of cases. And I think the federal government tried to intercede in some of those because those were kids who, by definition of how these programs work, would still be eligible when their parents were not.

Kenen: The one thing it’s always good to remind people that, I mean, this is an extraordinary mess. I mean, it’s not the unwinding, it’s the unraveling. But unlike employer-sponsored insurance and the Obamacare exchanges, there’s no enrollment season for Medicaid. You can get in if you qual 鈥 so it can be the unwinding could be rewound. If a child gets sick and they are in an ER or they’re in a hospital or in a doctor’s or whatever, they can get back in quickly. It is a 365-day, always-open, for both Medicaid and CHIP in I believe every state. There may be an exception I’m not aware of, but I think it’s everywhere.

Rovner: I think it’s everywhere. I think it’s a requirement that it’s everywhere.

Kenen: I think it’s federal, right. So yes, it’s a mess, but unlike many messes in health care, it is a mess that can be improved. Although of course not everybody knows that and somebody will be afraid to go to the doctor ’cause they can’t pay, etc., etc. I’m not minimizing what a mess it is. But if you get word out, you can get word out to people that, you know, if you’re sick, go to the doctor. You’re still being taken care of.

Rovner: And also when people do go to the doctor, at the same time they’re told, uh-oh, your Medicaid’s been canceled, they can be reenrolled if they’re still eligible.

Kenen: Yeah, right. I mean, community health clinics know that. Hospitals know that. I don’t know that all private physicians’ offices know that, but 鈥

Rovner: Although they should 鈥

Kenen: They should.

Rovner: 鈥 because that’s how they’ll get paid.

Kenen: They should.

Rovner: So I suspect 鈥 providers have an incentive to know who’s eligible because otherwise they’re not going to get paid.

Kenen: So that should be the next public campaign. If you lost your Medicaid, here’s how you get it back. And we don’t see enough of that.

Rovner: Last week we talked about a lot of health-related regulations the Biden administration is trying to finalize. If it seems they’re all happening at once, there is an actual reason for that. It’s called the Congressional Review Act. Basically the CRA lets a new Congress and administration easily undo regulations put in place by an earlier administration towards the end of a presidential term. Basically that means any regulations the Biden administration doesn’t want easily overturned by the next Congress and president, should it return to Republican hands, those regulations need to be completed roughly by the end of this month. Towards that end, and as I said, speaking of looking at the problem of the uninsured, last week the administration finalized a rule that would give people here under DACA, that’s the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program, access to subsidized coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

These are about 100,000 so-called Dreamers, those who are not here legally but were brought over as children. In general, those who are not in the country legally are not able to access Affordable Care Act coverage. That was a gigantic fight when the Affordable Care Act was being passed. In some ways, though, I feel like this addition of Dreamers to the ACA is an acknowledgement that they’re not going to get full legal status anytime soon, which has also been a fight that’s been going on for years and years.

Kenen: Yes. And I was wondering, like, who’s going to sue to stop this or introduce legislation? I mean, somebody will do something. I’m not sure what yet. I mean, I would be surprised if nobody tries to block this because there’s obviously controversy about normalizing the status of the Dreamers or the DACA population and it’s been going on for years. We’ll see. I mean, it’s just another, I mean, immigration is such a flash point in this year’s election. Maybe people will say, “OK, this portion of the Dreamers has legal status and they can get health insurance” and people won’t fight about it. But usually nowadays people fight about 鈥 I mean, if the intersection of health care and immigration, I would think somebody will fight about it.

Rovner: Yeah. I would, too. And also, I mean obviously the people who are preventing legislation from getting through to legalize the Dreamers’ status, there seems to be, I believe, there is overwhelming support in both houses, but not quite enough to get it through. I suspect those people on the other side might not be very happy about this. Well, finally this week in business, or more specifically this week in private equity in health care, the multistate hospital chain Steward Health [Care] filed for bankruptcy this week, putting up for sale all 31 of its hospitals, which normally wouldn’t be really big news. Lots of hospitals are having trouble keeping their doors open. But in this case, we’re talking about a chain that was pretty large and stable until it was bought by Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm.

Cerberus sold off the land the hospitals were on, requiring them to pay rent to yet another company, and then Cerberus got out. The details of the many transactions that took place are still kind of murky, but it appears that many investors did quite well, including acquisitions of some private yachts, while the hospitals, well, did not do so well. This all has yet to play out fully. But this seems to be pretty much how private equity often works, right? They buy something, take the profit that they can, and leave the rest to the whims of the marketplace, or in this case billions of dollars in debt now owed by these hospitals.

Weber: Yeah. I mean, I think when you look at private equity the question is always when is the multipliers going to run out? Like, when are you going to run out of things to sell to get the multipliers out? And the question is, when you do this with health care, you know, we’ve seen some emerging research show that the patient outcomes for private equity-owned health care systems can be impacted by infection rates and so on. And I mean, I thought it was particularly interesting at the end of this Wall Street Journal story, they also noted how UnitedHealthcare, there is some investigations over 鈥

Rovner: They’re tangentially involved.

Weber: They’re tangentially involved, but the government appeared 鈥 the story seems to allude to the government is interested in whether there’s some antitrust concerns on selling the doctors’ practices, which is obviously an ongoing issue as well as we talk about health care and acquisitions and consolidation in the country. So, 31 hospitals’ being insolvent is a lot of hospitals in a lot of states.

Rovner: Yeah. And I mean, the idea, I think, was that one of the ways they were going to pay off some of their debts was by selling the doctor practices to United. United, of course, now under the microscope for antitrust, might not be such an eager buyer, which leaves Steward holding the bag again with all of this debt. They owe literally billions of dollars to this company that now owns the land that their hospitals are on. It is quite the saga.

Kenen: It’s very complicated. I mean, I had to read everything more than once to understand it, and I’m not sure I totally understood all of it. It’s also sort of like the, you know, if you were writing, if you were teaching business school about what can go wrong when private equity buys a health system, this would be your final exam question. It is very complicated, extremely damaging, and the critics of PE in health care 鈥 I mean this is everything they warn about. And I would also, since all of us are journalists, I mean the same thing is going on with private equity in owning newspapers or newspaper chains: wreckage. Not everyone is a bad actor. There’s wreckage in health care and there’s wreckage in the media.

Rovner: Yeah. We will watch this one to see how it plays out. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Katheryn Houghton and then we will be back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my 素人色情片Health News colleague, in person, here in our Washington, D.C., studio, Katheryn Houghton, who reported and wrote the latest 素人色情片Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about an out-of-network surgery the patient knew would be expensive, but not how expensive it would be. Welcome, Katheryn.

Houghton: Hi.

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient, who he is, and what kind of treatment he got.

Houghton: So I spoke with Cass Smith-Collins. He’s a 52-year-old transgender man from Vegas, and he wanted to get surgery to match his chest to his gender identity, so he got top surgery.

Rovner: This was a planned surgery and he knew he was going to go out of network. So what kind of steps did he take in preparation to make sure that the surgery would be at least partially covered by his health insurance?

Houghton: Well, he actually took a really key step that some patients miss, and it’s making sure that you get prior authorization from insurance, so a letter from them saying we’re going to cover this. And he got that. He also talked with his surgeon beforehand, saying what do I need to do to make sure we can submit a claim with insurance? And he signed paperwork saying how that would happen.

Rovner: Then, as we say, the bill came. What went awry?

Houghton: Yeah. Or in this case the reimbursement didn’t come. For Cass’ case there are two key things that kind of went awry here. First off, covered doesn’t necessarily mean the entire bill. So what insurance says is a fair price is not going to match up with what the surgeon always says is a fair price. So when Cass saw that his procedure was covered, it didn’t say the entire amount. It didn’t say how much was covered. The second thing is that that provider agreement that he signed with the surgeon beforehand actually says you’re not guaranteed reimbursement. And that provider agreement also stated there are two different bills here. One is the cost that Cass paid up-front for his surgery, and the other was the bill submitted to insurance.

Rovner: And how much money are we actually talking about here?

Houghton: We’re talking about $14,000. And he expected to get about half of that back.

Rovner: Because he assumed that when he got to his out-of-network maximum the insurance would cover, right?

Houghton: Exactly.

Rovner: And that’s not what happened.

Houghton: Not at all.

Rovner: How much did the surgeon end up charging for the surgery and what did his insurance say about that?

Houghton: If you’re looking at both bills, the surgeon charged more than $120,000 for the surgery and insurance said ah, no, we’re not going to cover that. And it was a little over $4,000 that insurance said, this is the fair price.

Rovner: So that’s a big difference.

Houghton: A very big difference.

Rovner: Was Cass expected to pay the rest?

Houghton: He could have. The agreement that he signed actually said that he could be on the hook for whatever insurance didn’t cover. That being said, he didn’t get a bill this time around.

Rovner: So what eventually happened?

Houghton: So eventually, when 素人色情片Health News started asking questions about this, insurance increased how much that they paid the provider. And with that increased reimbursement, which was $97,000, the provider gave Cass a reimbursement of about $7,000.

Rovner: So he ended up paying about $7,000 out-of-pocket.

Houghton: It was more towards the line of what he was expecting to pay for this.

Rovner: Right. I was just going to say that was about what his out-of-pocket maximum was. But in this case he was kind of just lucky, right?

Houghton: Yes. I mean the paperwork that he signed in advance 鈥 it was really confusing paperwork. We had several experts look over this and say, yeah, there are things in this we don’t fully understand what it means.

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here? A lot of people want to go to a particular provider who may be very good at what they do but don’t take insurance. Is there any way that he could have better prepared for this financially or that somebody looking at a similar kind of situation and doesn’t want to end up having someone say, oh, you owe us $80,000?

Houghton: Right. Yeah. So for this case it was really important for Cass to go to a surgeon that he felt like he could trust. And so if you do have that out-of-network provider, there are a few steps you can actually take. There’s still no guarantees, but there are steps. First off, patients should always ask their insurance company what covered actually means. Are you talking the entire bill here? Are you talking just a portion of it? Try to get that outlined. You can also ask your insurance company to spell out the dollar amount that they’re willing to pay for this. That’s a really helpful step. And lastly, on the provider side, you can also say, “Hey, whatever insurance deems as a fair payment, can we count that as the total bill?” You can always ask that. They’re not required, but it’s worth checking.

Rovner: Yeah. So at least you go in with your eyes open knowing what your maximum is going to be.

Houghton: Exactly. Especially if you’re paying out-of-pocket to begin with. You really want to know what is insurance reimbursing for this? What is the provider going to charge me more at the end of this?

Rovner: Well, I’m glad this one had a happy ending. Katheryn Houghton, thank you very much.

Houghton: Thank you so much.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our “extra credit” segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, why don’t you go first this week?

Edney: Sure. So mine is from ProPublica by Anna Maria Barry-Jester and it’s “.” And I think we have even heard over the last few years the story of syphilis rates rising and in this specific look at the Great Plains, there are Native Americans there, that the syphilis rates are even worse. And this is resulting in deaths of babies, like wanted children. And it seems like the federal government has been pretty lackluster in its response, to put it mildly, sending a few CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] workers for a couple of weeks, and the tribes have been asking for basically a national emergency so they can get more help. And they’ve gone straight to HHS [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Xavier] Becerra, and at least in the last several weeks as this was being reported, they haven’t gotten any response or any help. So I think it’s an important story to spread far and wide.

Rovner: It is. Joanne?

Kenen: There was a very interesting op-ed in The New York Times this week by Dr. Carl Elliott, who is a physician and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota: “.” It’s a little hard to summarize, but it’s very subtle. It’s the culture of medicine, of being a medical student or a resident, and the things you see, so much of what you see, shocks you anyway because it’s something you have to get used to. But there are outrages. He begins, the opening anecdote is a woman is unconscious and anesthetized before her surgery and the doctor in charge invites all the med students to come and like, “Oh, why don’t you come touch her cervix? She’ll never know. See what it’s like.”

And to that, to really the larger, even larger questions about how did Willowbrook [State School] survive for all those years? How did the Tuskegee studies go on for all those years? You know, at what point, what are the sort of cultural and peer pressure and dynamics of these outrages, big and large, becoming normalized? And, you know, as we know, like recently HHS just said you have to have a written consent for a pelvic exam, particularly if you’re going to be unconscious. But that’s only one example 鈥 it was a very disturbing piece actually.

Rovner: Yeah. It really was. Lauren?

Weber: I chose Nicholas Florko’s piece on how “,” in Stat. Great piece. He dug through a bunch of the Juul legal documents that have been revealed to show how two prominent NYU public health professors were communicating with Juul about their comments in both a congressional hearing and then public comments to many, many journalists defending vaping and saying that, you know, it had public health benefits because it got people off of cigarettes. And it raises up a lot of thorny questions about conflict of interest. These public health officials say they were not paid by Juul, but they did accept dinners. And the question is, you know, a lot of the studies they submitted, one of them they even sent to Juul. It’s a lot of thorny questions about academic review and disclosures. It’s a great piece, too, and a warning for all journalists of who are you interviewing, what are their ties, and what are the disclosures that they may or may not be sharing? It was a great story.

Rovner: Yeah. Super thought-provoking. I will say, every time I speak 鈥 and we don’t take money for speaking 鈥 all of my speeches are for free. But I constantly, you know, they now have to fill out that, “Do you have any conflicts of interest?” And it’s like, no, I don’t take any money from any industry. But it’s all basically self-reported, and I think that’s one of the big problems with this whole issue. Well, my story this week is from The Nation. It’s by Amy Littlefield. It’s called “.” And it’s not the first story like this, but it’s a very comprehensive look at the fight that’s shaping up between blue states that are passing shield laws to protect doctors who are providing abortion medication to patients in red states where, as we discussed earlier, prosecutors would like to reach back to punish those blue-state providers. It’s a fairly small group of providers operating in what is still a legally gray area.

As we mentioned, this is all still under 鈥 in court, in various places at various levels 鈥 but I do think it’s one of the next big battles that are shaping up in reproductive health. It’s a really good piece. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at Twitter, , or at Bluesky and at Threads. Joanne, are you hanging anywhere on social media?

Kenen: A little bit on Twitter , not even that much. But more on Threads .

Rovner: Anna?

Edney: on Twitter and on Threads.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still only on Twitter, . HP is for health policy.

Rovner: Don’t apologize. You can find us all if you really want to. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts,听click here.

And subscribe to 素人色情片Health News’ “What the Health?” on听,听,听, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1850694
Journalists Delve Into Climate Change, Medicaid ‘Unwinding,’ and the Gap in Mortality Rates /news/article/journalists-delve-into-climate-change-medicaid-unwinding-and-the-gap-in-mortality-rates/ Sat, 04 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=1847453&post_type=article&preview_id=1847453 素人色情片Health News senior correspondent Samantha Young discussed Medicaid and climate change on KCBS Radio’s “On-Demand” podcast on April 29.

  • Read Young’s “”

素人色情片Health News contributor Andy Miller discussed Medicaid unwinding on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on April 26.

素人色情片Health News Nevada correspondent Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez discussed mortality rates in rural America on The Daily Yonder’s “The Yonder Report” on April 24.

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1847453
In Oregon, Medicaid Is Buying People Air Conditioners /news/article/health-202-oregon-medicaid-air-conditioners/ Thu, 02 May 2024 13:06:15 +0000 /?p=1847235&post_type=article&preview_id=1847235 Oregon has started providing air conditioners, air purifiers and power banks to help some of its Medicaid recipients cope with soaring heat, smoky skies and other dangers of climate change.

It’s a听first-in-the-nation experiment听that expands a Biden administration strategy to take Medicaid beyond traditional medical care and into the realm of social services.

“Climate change is a health-care issue,” Health and Human Services Secretary听Xavier Becerra听told me, adding that states should be encouraged to experiment with ways to improve people’s health.

But Medicaid’s expansion into social services could lead to abuse, especially when government pays for equipment or services that everyone wants, said听Sherry Glied, dean of听New York University’s graduate school of public service.

“The challenge here is that air conditioners are something that both healthy people and people who have your really serious condition benefit from,” Glied said. “Most people have air conditioners for reasons that have nothing to do with their health.”

Many states are already spending听听on services like helping homeless people get housing and preparing healthy meals for people with diabetes. But Oregon is the first to spend Medicaid money explicitly on climate-related equipment to help its most vulnerable residents 鈥 an estimated听200,000听enrollees.

Recipients must meet federal guidelines that categorize them as “facing certain life transitions,” a stringent听听that disqualify most enrollees. For example, a person with an underlying medical condition that could worsen during a heat wave, and who is also at risk for homelessness or has been released from prison in the past year, could receive an air conditioner. But someone with stable housing might not qualify.

“Each person is going to be looked at as what they need for their particular circumstance,” said听Dave Baden, deputy director for programs and policy at the听Oregon Health Authority, which administers the state’s Medicaid program, with about听. The program, part of a five-year听$1.1 billion听effort that includes housing and nutrition services, also pays for mini fridges to keep medications cold, portable power supplies to run ventilators and other medical devices during outages, space heaters for winter and air filters to improve air quality during wildfire season.

Scientists and public health officials say climate change poses a growing health risk. The federal government’s听听projects that more frequent and intense floods, droughts, wildfires, extreme temperatures and storms will cause more deaths, cardiovascular disease from poor air quality and other problems.听

The mounting health effects disproportionately hit low-income Americans and people of color, who are often covered by Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people.

Most of the听102听Oregonians who died during a deadly heat dome that settled over the Pacific Northwest in 2021 “were elderly, isolated and living with low incomes,” a听听found.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1847235
AC, Power Banks, Mini Fridges: Oregon Equips Medicaid Patients for Climate Change /news/article/oregon-medicaid-patients-climate-benefits/ Wed, 01 May 2024 06:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1845961 Oregon is shipping air conditioners, air purifiers, and power banks to some of its most vulnerable residents, a first-in-the-nation experiment to use Medicaid money to prevent the potentially deadly health effects of extreme heat, wildfire smoke, and other climate-related disasters.

The equipment, which started going out in March, expands a Biden administration strategy to move Medicaid beyond traditional medical care and into the realm of social services.

At least 20 states, including California, , and Washington, already direct billions of Medicaid dollars into programs such as helping homeless people get housing and preparing healthy meals for people with diabetes, according to KFF. Oregon is the first to use Medicaid money explicitly for climate-related costs, part of its five-year, $1.1 billion effort to address social needs, which also includes housing and nutrition benefits.

State and federal health officials hope to show that taxpayer money and lives can be saved when investments are made before disaster strikes.

“Climate change is a health care issue,” so helping Oregon’s poorest and sickest residents prepare for potentially dangerous heat, drought, and other extreme weather makes sense, said Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra on a visit to Sacramento, California, in early April.

Becerra said the Biden administration wants states to experiment with how best to improve patient health, whether by keeping someone housed instead of homeless, or reducing their exposure to heat with an air conditioner.

But Medicaid’s expansion into social services may duplicate existing housing and nutrition programs offered by other federal agencies, while some needy Americans can’t get essential medical care, said , director of the Medicaid and Health Safety Net Reform Initiative at the Paragon Health Institute.

“There are intellectually disabled people in the United States waiting for Medicaid services. They’re on a waitlist,” said Alexander, who oversaw state health agencies in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. “Meanwhile Medicaid has money for housing and food and air conditioners for recipients. Seems to me that we should serve the intellectually disabled first before we get into all of these new areas.”

Scientists and public health officials say climate change poses a growing health risk. More frequent and intense floods, droughts, wildfires, extreme temperatures, and storms cause more deaths, cardiovascular disease from poor air quality, and other problems, according to the federal government’s .

The mounting health effects disproportionately hit low-income Americans and people of color, who are often covered by Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people.

Most of the 102 Oregonians who died during the deadly heat dome that settled over the Pacific Northwest in 2021 “were elderly, isolated and living with low incomes,” according to a , which administers the state’s Medicaid program, with about . The OHA’s analysis of urgent care and emergency room use from May through September of 2021 and 2022 found that 60% of heat-related illness visits were from residents of areas with a median household income below $50,000.

“In the last 10-plus years, the amount of fires and smoke events and excessive heat events that we’ve had has shown the disproportionate impact of those events on those with lower incomes,” said Dave Baden, the OHA’s deputy director for programs and policy.

And, because dangerously high temperatures aren’t common in Oregon, many residents don’t have air conditioning in their homes.

Traditionally, states hit by natural disasters and public health emergencies have asked the federal government for on back-up power, air filters, and other equipment to help victims recover. But those requests came after the fact, following federal emergency declarations.

Oregon wants to be proactive and pay for equipment that will help an estimated 200,000 residents manage their health at home before extreme weather or climate-related disaster hits, Baden said. In addition to air conditioning units, the program will pay for mini fridges to keep medications cold, portable power supplies to run ventilators and other medical devices during outages, space heaters for winter, and air filters to improve air quality during wildfire season.

In March, the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s Medicaid program, began asking health insurers to who might need help coping with extreme weather. Recipients must meet federal guidelines that categorize them as “facing certain life transitions,” a stringent set of requirements that disqualify most enrollees. For example, a person with an underlying medical condition that could worsen during a heat wave, and who is also at risk for homelessness or has been released from prison in the past year, could receive an air conditioner. But someone with stable housing might not qualify.

“You could be in a housing complex, and your neighbor qualified for an air conditioner and you didn’t,” Baden said.

At the offices of insurer AllCare Health in Grants Pass, Oregon, air conditioners, air filters, and mini fridges were piled in three rooms in mid-April, ready to be handed over to Medicaid patients. The health plan provided equipment to 19 households in March. The idea is to get the supplies into people’s homes before the summer fire season engulfs the valley in smoke.

Health plans don’t want to find themselves “fighting the masses” at Home Depot when the skies are already smoky or the heat is unbearable, said Josh Balloch, AllCare’s vice president of health policy.

“We’re competing against everybody else, and you can’t find a fan on a hot day,” he said.

Oregon and some other states have already used Medicaid money to buy air conditioners, air purifiers, and other goods for enrollees, but not under the category of climate change. For example, to help asthma patients and New York to provide air conditioners to asthma patients.

Baden said Oregon health officials will evaluate whether sending air conditioners and other equipment to patients saves money by looking at their claim records in the coming years.

If Oregon can help enrollees avoid a costly trip to the doctor or the ER after extreme weather, other state Medicaid programs may ask the federal government if they can adopt the benefit. Many states haven’t yet used Medicaid money for climate change because it affects people and regions differently, said Paul Shattuck, a senior fellow at Mathematica, a research organization that has surveyed state Medicaid directors on the issue.

“The health risks of climate change are everywhere, but the nature of risk exposure is completely different in every state,” Shattuck said. “It’s been challenging for Medicaid to get momentum because each state is left to their own devices to figure out what to do.”

A California state lawmaker last year introduced legislation that would have required Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, to add a climate benefit under its existing social services expansion. The program would have been similar to Oregon’s, but , by Assembly member Lisa Calderon, died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which questioned in a whether “climate change remediation supports can be defined as cost-effective.”

The cost savings are clear to Kaiser Permanente. After the 2021 heat wave, it sent air conditioners to 81 patients in Oregon and southwest Washington whose health conditions might get worse in extreme heat, said Catherine Potter, community health consultant at the health system. The following year, Kaiser Permanente estimated it had prevented $42,000 in heat-related ER visits and $400,000 in hospital admissions, she said.

“We didn’t used to have extreme heat like this, and we do now,” said Potter, who has lived in the temperate Portland area for 30 years. “If we can prevent these adverse impacts, we should be preventing them especially for people that are going to be most affected.”

This article was produced by 素人色情片Health News, which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1845961
Millions Were Booted From Medicaid. The Insurers That Run It Gained Medicaid Revenue Anyway. /news/article/medicaid-unwinding-insurer-revenue/ Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:55:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1845133 Private Medicaid health plans lost millions of members in the past year as pandemic protections that prohibited states from dropping anyone from the government program expired.

But despite Medicaid’s unwinding, as it’s known, at least two of the five largest publicly traded companies selling plans have continued to increase revenue from the program, according to their latest earnings reports.

“It’s a very interesting paradox,” said Andy Schneider, a research professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, of plans’ Medicaid revenue increasing despite enrollment drops.

Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income and disabled people, is administered by states. But most people enrolled in the program get their health care through insurers contracted by states, including UnitedHealthcare, Centene, and Molina.

The companies persuaded states to pay them more money per Medicaid enrollee under the assumption that younger and healthier people were dropping out 鈥 presumably for Obamacare coverage or employer-based health insurance, or because they didn’t see the need to get coverage 鈥 leaving behind an older and sicker population to cover, their executives have told investors.

Several of the companies reported that states have made midyear and retrospective changes in their payments to plans to account for the worsening health status of members.

In an earnings call with analysts on April 25, Molina Healthcare CEO Joe Zubretsky said 19 states increased their payment rates this year to adjust for sicker Medicaid enrollees. “States have been very responsive,” Zubretsky said. “We couldn’t be more pleased with the way our state customers have responded to having rates be commensurate with normal cost trends and trends that have been influenced by the acuity shift.”

Health plans have faced much uncertainty during the Medicaid unwinding, as states began reassessing enrollees’ eligibility and dropping those deemed no longer qualified or who lost coverage because of procedural errors. Before the unwinding, plans said they expected the overall risk profile of their members to go up because those remaining in the program would be sicker.

UnitedHealthcare, Centene, and Molina had Medicaid revenue increases ranging from 3% to 18% in 2023, according to KFF. The two other large Medicaid insurers, Elevance and CVS Health, do not break out Medicaid-specific revenue.

The Medicaid enrollment of the five companies by about 10% from the end of March 2023 through the end of December 2023, from 44.2 million people to 39.9 million, 素人色情片data shows.

In the first quarter of 2024, UnitedHealth’s Medicaid revenue , up from $18.8 billion in the same quarter of 2023.

Molina on April 24 reported nearly $7.5 billion in Medicaid revenue in the first quarter of 2024, up from $6.3 billion in the same quarter a year earlier.

On April 26, Centene reported that its Medicaid enrollment fell 18.5% to 13.3 million in the first quarter of 2024 compared with the same period a year ago. The company’s Medicaid revenue dipped 3% to $22.2 billion.

Unlike UnitedHealthcare, whose Medicaid enrollment fell to 7.7 million in March 2024 from 8.4 million a year prior, Molina’s Medicaid enrollment rose in the first quarter of 2024 to 5.1 million from 4.8 million in March 2023. Molina’s enrollment jump last year was partly a result of its having bought a Medicaid plan in Wisconsin and gained a new Medicaid contract in Iowa, the company said in its earnings news release.

Molina because states were prohibited from terminating Medicaid coverage during the pandemic. The company has lost 550,000 of those people during the unwinding and expects to lose an additional 50,000 by June.

About 90% of Molina Medicaid members have gone through the redetermination process, Zubretsky said.

The corporate giants also offset the enrollment losses by getting more Medicaid money from states, which they use to pass on higher payments to certain facilities or providers, Schneider said. By holding the money temporarily, the companies can count these “directed payments” as revenue.

Medicaid health plans were big winners during the pandemic after the federal government prohibited states from dropping people from the program, leading to a surge in enrollment to about 93 million Americans.

States made efforts to limit health plans’ profits by clawing back some payments above certain thresholds, said Elizabeth Hinton, an associate director at KFF.

But once the prohibition on dropping Medicaid enrollees was lifted last spring, the plans faced uncertainty. It was unclear how many people would lose coverage or when it would happen. Since the unwinding began, more than 20 million people have been dropped from the rolls.

Medicaid enrollees’ health care costs were lower during the pandemic, and some states decided to exclude pandemic-era cost data as they considered how to set payment rates for 2024. That provided yet another win for the Medicaid health plans.

Most states are expected to complete their Medicaid unwinding processes this year.

素人色情片Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
1845133