Vol. 167 March 15, 2017 AHCA (RepubliCare) Revealed

March 15, 2017

WINNERS: Young, Wealthy, Healthy, “Blue States” (urban millennials)
LOSERS: Older, Poor, Sick, “Red States” (rural working poor)

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) was developed by Paul Ryan (R) who has been publicly promising a Republican health care act since 2009!  He apparently does not want his name attached to this one. Neither does Trump. So I choose to call it “RepubliCare”.

The Congressional Budget Office’s “quick and dirty” analysis of the American Health Care Act (actually two bills still in committee) estimates that 14 million people will lose their health insurance in 2018 if it “replaces” the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Of all the projections, this one is probably the most crucial, since it will be a factor in the mid-term elections.

The CBO is a non-partisan, independent body created by President Richard Nixon in his last act before resigning in 1974. The CBO aids Congress in developing their own budget proposals, in objectively costing out their proposed bills, and in analyzing budgets developed by the Executive branch. The Commonwealth Fund (a liberal think tank) has determined that all financial projections of ACA costs were inaccurate, but that the CBO was closest to the actual. This current CBO report was done in association with the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. It is “quick and dirty” because the sudden appearance of the two bills surprised them. The CBO states it had insufficient time to project the cost effects on states and other “macroeconomic” effects, as required by the House of Representative rules for any “major legislation”.  The published projections actually represent the mid-point between low and high estimates, neither of which have been made public.

RepubliCare is projected to trim $337 Billion off the federal deficit over 10 years. According to the CBO most of the increase in the uninsured and the cost savings (federal only) would result from repealing the individual mandate, lowering the federal subsidies for low-income non-group policies, decreasing the federal subsidy to Medicaid by going to “block grants” to states, and stopping any expansion of Medicaid coverage after 2020.

CBO had three weeks to analyze the ACA. They had 5 days with RepubliCare. CBO 2010 projections of the ACA costs were lower than actual because 1) more people opted for Medicaid coverage than expected, 2) actual Medicaid costs per enrollee were higher than expected,  3) the individual mandate (currently a $695 yearly penalty for not buying health insurance) proved too weak an incentive for young people to buy insurance, 4) health insurance exchanges (the private insurers market place) attracted only about half of the projected number of people, and 5) the general economy improved slower than estimated (“did not match the Ronald Reagan Recovery curve.”)

Rather than boring you with repeats of the number of “millions losing health insurance per year” under RepubliCare, here are some “fun facts” about it you can use to punctuate chats with your friends and colleagues:

  • It is 66 pages long. (That calculates out to about 8.25 pages per year for the writing pace of Paul Ryan (R).
  • 6 pages are devoted to changes in Medicaid eligibility rules, including the interesting item prohibiting any Lottery winner from being eligible for Medicaid.
  • replaces the individual mandate ($695 penalty tax) with tax credits worth about 1/12th of the average yearly insurance premium (for anyone, of course, who has a taxable income).
  • eliminates the 2.3% tax on medical devices. (The Advanced Medical Technology Association is the only Massachusetts medical organization that has expressed support of RepubliCare so far)
  • eliminates the 10% tax on tanning stores (Probably a blatant try for support from Trump and ex-senator John Boehner (R). Actually, pale Paul Ryan (R) could use a visit or two, though universities and colleges across the country are limiting student access to tanning stores because of the increased risk of melanoma).
  • removes coverage for substance abuse and mental health services by 2020.
  • eliminates tax surcharge on insurance executives “earning” more than $500,000 a year.
  • eliminates tax on big pharma-manufacturing companies
  • delays implementation of 40% tax on “Cadillac” health insurance policies for high income people until 2025.
  • prohibits Medicaid reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for any of their services. (a major source of revenue for the 97% of preventative and non-abortion treatment services PP provides)
  • retains prohibition against denying pre-existing conditions (but imposes a 30% surcharge for such for 1 year).
  • retains coverage of children under 26 on parents’ policy.
  • retains coverage for contraceptive and maternity benefits.
  • retains prohibition of any surcharges on women’s policies (“gender equivalence”)
  • allows elders to be charged 5 times the premium of younger people. (AARP is all over this one as age discrimination) ACA allowed a 3:1 premium ratio.
  • increases maximum contributions to Health Savings Account (HSA) from $3,400 to $6,500. ( Great , if you are making enough money to save.)

Liberals, Democrats, many Republicans, many governors, hospitals, physicians, the AARP, and even conservatives don’t like the bill.

“The AHCA does what it was intended to do; it lowers federal spending and reduces the number of people with health insurance.” (Michael Chernew, MD, Harvard University)

“ It would repeal far less of ObamaCare than the bill Republicans sent to President Obama one year ago. The House Republican leadership bill does not replace ObamaCare. It merely applies a new coat of paint to a building that Republicans themselves have already condemned.” Cato Institute 

Republicans in Congress are claiming that the CBO did not cover the “whole” plan. “What was not covered was what else we are going to do in terms of ‘regulation reforms’, state Medicaid rules, and future bills.”

I believe we are being asked to buy a hastily produced “pig in a poke”, an even bigger pig in a bigger poke than Obamacare.


Vol. 166 March 1, 2017 Who’s Stupid??

March 5, 2017

alfred_e_neumanI can’t believe I SKIPPED FEBRUARY.
I also can’t believe that only one reader called me on it.
Maybe I only have one reader.
I dated my last blog, “Can Pregnancy Make You Stupid”,  with March 15 and the one before with March 1, but they were both published in February!
My only explanation is that I was looking forward so much to my March vacation in the Caribbean that I fast forwarded to that month.
Today is March 1, … and I am on vacation.  So, this is today’s blog.
I guess I needed a vacation.
March 15 blog will be on time and correctly dated.


Vol. 165 March 15, 2017 Can Pregnancy Make You Stupid?

February 15, 2017

Hub thumbnail 2015

“Most pregnant women will admit to bouts of “pregnancy brain” or “mommy brain” — whether it’s forgetting doctor’s appointments or forgetting their own phone number. This pregnancy-induced mental fog is part of the neurological changes at the start of pregnancy that continue throughout postpartum. ”

 

I am not at all sure that this phenomenon really exists, but scientists at Barcelona University recently published results from their study of 25 first-time pregnant women, the 25 fathers responsible for the pregnancies, and 20 non-pregnant childless women.  By comparing “before conception” and “postpartum” MRIs in the pregnant women the researchers documented a definite reduction in the pregnant women’s gray matter. The volume loss of gray matter occurred in three specific areas of the brain associated with social cognition and emotional feelings.  The differences of volume in the pregnant women was so apparent that the researchers could accurately pick which women were pregnant just by looking at the MRIs. Similar MRI imaging of the fathers and non-pregnant women showed no reduction of gray matter.

Gray matter is the part of the brain cortex that is mostly neuronal cells. White matter consists mostly of connections between the neuronal cells, axons (“wires”) coated with white myelin. The reduction of gray matter in the pregnant women was in brain areas associated with “being able to think about how other people feel and perceive things.” and persisted for 2 years after delivery.

Using fMRI (functional MRI – measures brain activity not just structure) these reduced gray matter areas would “light up”, show higher metabolic activity, when the mother gazed upon a picture of her own baby rather than a picture of someone else’s baby. The researchers speculated that this was a measure of quality “mother-infant attachment”.

The implication of this gray matter reduction is not clear. Many past studies in all kinds of people suggest strongly that people with larger volume of gray matter have better memory and are happier.

A study of ultra-marathoners (ran 2,788 miles in 64 days without a rest day) showed a reduction of gray matter of 6%, but it was reversed in 6 months and was not associated with any brain lesions. In comparison to the less than 0.2% per year gray matter reduction in the elderly this 6% is H-Y-U-G-E. Pre- and post-run Cognitive tests would have been help in this study of ultra-marathoners, but I am not sure you could detect any increase in stupidity in them. Presumably the reversible reduction in brain volume was due to dehydration.

Studies of chronic marijuana users show reduction in gray matter, but increased “connections”, and no loss of cognitive skills (if not high at the time of testing). This and similar findings in adolescent brains have been explained as either a bad thing about marijuana use or as a “maturation” of the brain as it gets “better organized” for specialized tasks. A similar explanation of an “organizing process”, “a pruning toward a more efficient brain” is offered by the researchers of these pregnant women.

So where does this leave us regarding permanent gray matter reduction in pregnant women? We, of course, don’t really know at this point. fMRI studies are still in their infancy, and there is some controversy about what they really mean. But, cognitive tests of both these pregnant and non-pregnant women showed no difference, and no change in cognitive functions after delivery, so we can confidently say that pregnancy does NOT make you “stupid”… or even “stupider”.


Vol. 164 March 1, 2017 The Exercise Paradox

January 31, 2017

Hub thumbnail 2015

“You can’t outrun a bad diet”

It appears that an African native chasing a wounded giraffe through the bush and over the plains for 12 hours in order to get food for himself and his family burns the SAME NUMBER OF CALORIES per day as the modern couch potato. Researchers measuring the urine excretion of two radioactive isotopes of water ingested by the subjects (the “gold standard” of measuring energy expenditure) have confirmed this fact as postulated previously by several studies. These African hunter-gatherers burned about 2,600 calories a day, about the same as average adults in present day U.S. and Europe.

The researchers were looking to measure the size of the “energy shortfall” in Westerners to explain the global rise of obesity. They found none. In fact, another review of almost a hundred (98) world-wide studies of energy expenditure (calories burned per day) revealed that “the persons with all the modern conveniences have similar energy expenditures to those with more physically demanding lives in less developed countries.”  Therefore, “obesity is a disease of gluttony, not sloth.”

Physical activity does NOT cause weight loss, but exercise can help prevent weight gain.  A JAMA 2010 study of 34,000 middle-aged U.S. women showed that 60 minutes a day of moderate exercise (walking) prevented weight gain in those on a normal diet who had previously lost weight through dieting.

As someone who collected articles about  bad things happening to joggers to justify my ignoring Society’s “persistent call to go running”, this is music to my ears. The evidence that exercise, including just walking, is good for you is absolutely true and well accepted. It just doesn’t help you lose weight. Again, as someone who has made a resolution every January to lose weight by going to the gym only to peter out by the end of every March, this made me feel less inadequate, or at least less guilty.

Humans have a fixed rate of energy expenditure which is independent of their physical activity. A subsequent study of 300 people wearing Fit-bits showed that those doing moderate activity  (some exercise and always taking the stairs) burned only 200 more calories than couch potatoes. People doing intense physical activity did NOT burn more calories than the moderately active people. Again, the African bushman burns the SAME number of calories walking a mile as does the Westerner.

Studies of energy expenditure in zoo animals compared to animals in the wild reveal the same constancy. How can this be? No one really knows, but the authors speculate that since human energy expenditure is quite constant (and constrained), we modern adults who are not chasing wounded giraffes over the veld have evolved metabolic adaptations that spend our calories on supporting brain functions (the oxygen you take in with every fourth breath is needed just to feed your brain) , running our inflammatory processes (exercise may prevent inflammation by diverting energy from it), producing more and bigger babies, and living longer. But, I am not sure that I am any smarter than the African bushman who lives to 70 in his world, and many of them do.

Humans have learned to cook which increases the caloric value of many foods and makes them more efficiently digested.
We also have evolved to be fat. Our tendency to store fat is probably an adaptation for surviving lean times.
During lean times our survival is enhanced by us sharing what food there is.
Apes do not share.

“Exercise to stay healthy and vital;
focus on diet to look after your weight.”

References:
1. The Exercise Paradox, Herman Pontzer, Scientific American, Feb. 2017, 28-31


Vol. 163 January 16, 2017 From Zero to $7,500: One Consequence of Obamacare Repeal.

January 16, 2017

Hub thumbnail 2015

“As a doctor, I will take it and make it my mission
to heal the nation, reverse the course of Obamacare,
and repeal every last bit of it. ”
-Rand Paul

What exactly could happen if Obamacare was taken away? My daughter’s recent landing of a second part-time job offered an opportunity for me to understand the possible result in one case.

As a singer-songwriter, energy healer, and part-time retail clerk my daughter shares a common situation with many on Cape Cod; an annual income of less than $16,000, which is the current federal definition of poverty.  She is therefore eligible for Medicaid in Massachusetts. She pays no premium, has no deductible, and except for some named prescription medicines she has no co-pays. Preventative, pre-natal, and behavioral health services are covered. Her out-of-pocket cost per year is essentially zero. Some Obamacare repealers want to roll back the extension of Medicaid eligibility financed by federal subsidies. In many states that would strip this kind of  coverage from many of those newly covered under the ACA, but that is not a possibility in Massachusetts.

In my daughter’s case her new, second part-time job may push her annual income over $16,000. If so, she will no longer be eligible for Medicaid. As a part-time worker she is not be eligible for an employer-sponsored (and partially paid for) health plan. Her employer’s HR department told her she could buy a basic policy with a $2700 annual deductible for $226 a month through the school. “Co-pays varied and are difficult to predict.”  For her that is a new potential cost of $5400 out-of-pocket per year.

She got married last year and her spouse is in the same “low-income” bracket, so she inquired about a family policy (“for 2”). The answer: $400 a month at the same $2700 deductible amount for a $7,500 potential out-of-pocket cost. A $7,500 out-of-pocket cost “exposure” per year is a big nut for a family earning less than $22,000 a year.

Her other choice (besides going uninsured and paying a fine of $300-$2,085 in 2017 depending on income level) is buying an individual policy through an ACA Health Insurance Exchange. Under Obamacare any individual that is making less than 138% of the federal poverty level (about $22,000) can shop for a policy via a state or federal health insurance marketplace (also called health insurance exchange).  The exchanges can offer federally-financed subsidies of up to 60% of premium for eligible “working poor”. After lengthy website surfing, face-to-face help from the Health Connecter facilitator at a local hospital, and several phone calls with prolonged holding periods, she discovered that she could buy about the same basic policy of $2700 deductible for $226 a month through the health insurance exchange. BUT, despite providing all sorts of financial info they could not tell her…”yet” … what the premium would be and whether she was eligible for a premium subsidy. She was told that “things were in flux”, and that she could get a “call back in a week or two about that”. The enrollment deadline for signing up is January 31.

Just “for the fun of it” and to satisfy my curiosity I masqueraded online as my daughter to experience the health insurance application process via the Mass Health Connector. Over three different days I persisted on the internet and on the telephone to try to get the answer to : ”What would it cost to buy a basic individual health insurance policy?”  After reviewing and clicking on 5 to 7 different logos with unfamiliar company names, after entering the same information on multiple screens, after holding for more than 20 minutes on three separate phone calls, after being passed on to three different “responders” on one phone call, and after twice being hung up on after saying that “I was currently on Medicaid, but was looking for insurance to start February 1 when I would become ineligible”, I GAVE UP THE QUEST WITHOUT AN ANSWER.

Different sites had different definitions of “basic” and most had three or more different levels of benefits (coverage). Descriptions of benefits were quite lengthy and often complex.  For instance, the Bronze (basic) Level of “Access Blue Saver II“ (from Blue Cross; the easiest comparison charts to read) offered a 9 page policy offering no preventative or prenatal care with a $3,350 deductible and $60 co-pay for office visit and $1000 co-pay for an ER visit. Silver, Gold, and Platinum “Access” policies had different benefits. I could not get any information about actual premiums without further phone calls to “licensed brokers.”

Why is this so convoluted and confusing in contrast to the simpler processes of Medicaid and Medicare? One answer is that individual insurance policies are a gamble. For instance, a life insurance policy is really a bet between you and the insurance company. If you lose (die), you win (receive all the premiums back). If you win (out live the term), you lose and the company wins (keeps all the premiums). Another answer is that 400,000 people more than 2015  are flocking to sign up through health insurance exchanges.(1)

Obamacare has not changed the basic premise of individual health insurance policies, and the insurance companies are trying to make their  “best bets”. The betting odds are not as clear as the 1:6 of Russian Roulette, though we know that lack of health insurance can be lethal. The betting odds are more like those of Black Jack. The dealer (health insurance company) is using multiple decks, other players (consumers) at the table can affect your odds, the best odds are not always intuitively obvious, and the dealer (health insurance company) can change the betting rules every year.

Medicaid and Medicare are insurance programs based on large populations and therefore need less of the gambling “tricks of the trade” of writing individual polices. Hence my support for a health insurance program based on a large population, sometimes called a single-payor system. If not “Medicare For All”, then how about state-based programs of “Medicaid For All.” (2)

References:
1. Boston Globe, pg.2, December 22, 2016, from the NY Times.
2. NEJM, 375;26, December 29, 2016, “Maintaining Insurance Access Under Trump – A Strategy”


Vol. 161 January 1, 2017 Recap of 2016 Hubslist Blogs

January 1, 2017

Hub thumbnail 2015

“Don’t look back.
Something may be gaining on you.”
-#6 of Satchel Paige’s Guides to Good Living

Click on the date to view the entire blog.

January 1 –   “How bad is the heroin epidemic on a scale from 1 to 10?” Could physician compliance with the patient-reported pain scale have contributed to the over prescription of opioids?

February 1 –  From Z to A – Zika virus to autism with G and F for gluten-free diet in the middle.

February 15 – The “single blood drop” lab test that never panned out (my largest pile of misplaced enthusiasm and the poorest stock tip ever) and “Uber Doctor”.  The founder of Theranos was banned from engaging in any laboratory business for 2 years.

March 1 – “Smith” as the most likely name of your doctor went from #1 in 1930-39 to #4 in 1980-89, replaced by “Patel”, “Shah”, and “Lee”. The largest contingent (20%) of foreign-born U.S. physicians came from India during that period.

March 15 – Health apps (and now Alexa apparently) are not “secure” since they transmit data about your personal use back to company headquarters (at least, not to the NSA … we think)

April Fools Day – TrumpaCare Health Plan Revealed. It doesn’t read quite as tongue-in-cheek now as it did then.

April 15 – The bathroom bill and how diclofenac killed all the vultures in India and why that matters.

May 1 – Multiple private insurance companies pull out of Obamacare (ACA) which somehow continued to be attacked as a “socialistic, single-payor” scheme.

May 15 – Medical fun facts about three presidents and Obama’s prediction in third grade about becoming President and “visiting all the places in Indonesia”.

June 1 – Placebos work better as therapy if they cost more. The Chinese reduced adult myopia by getting the kids to play outside more often while 40% of U.S. toddlers (under 2 yo.) already play with an electronic mobile device.

June 15 – Annual update on sun and bugs … actually anti-sun and anti-bugs.

July 15 – Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) of opioid/heroin addiction works pretty well without making the patient lie down. So, more beds are NOT needed and are NOT the answer.

August 1 – Five reasons that playing video games improves learning in kids… IF the content is right.

September 1 – Various “redefinitions” of medical “truths” about teen age pregnancies, blood pressure medicines, and lead exposure.

September 15 –  How to be an appropriately skeptical reader of media reports of “medical advances” … aka “Beware of Percentages” in hyped reports of improved outcomes.

October 1 – “Light up or not.” Pros and cons of recreational marijuana referenda on 8 state ballots.

October 15 – Asking your doctor to make you a “DNT ” after “a certain age”. Nine medical tests that can be optional after 65 because their benefits are elusive and results may cause more problems than they are worth. Choose Wisely website.

November 1 – A really scary clown CAN kill you. The same physiological mechanism may have caused Debbie Reynolds’ sudden death while she was planning Carrie Fisher’s funeral.

November 15 – Real health CARE reform is the way to improve on the health care INSURANCE reform of Obamacare.

December 1 – Less old people are leaving their car keys in the refrigerator while Germany and Japan residents gain more weight in a year than we do.

December 15 –  Though the stakes are high (lack of health insurance causes 45,000 unnecessary deaths in the U.S.) it will probably take two years for Trump and the Republican Congress to turn back the accomplishments of Obamacare.
I am hoping that as an unintended consequence of their reframing of the ACA, the law will actually be improved.

HAPPY NEW YEAR from an eternal optimist.


Vol. 160 December 15, 2016 ACA or Not ACA, That Is The Question.

December 15, 2016

Hub thumbnail 2015

As Trump continues to form his cabinet and Obama counts the days left while Hillary remains hidden in the woods, speculation about what will happen to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is wide-ranging. Will it be repealed? CAN it be repealed? What will replace it? What if nothing replaces it?

It may help to remember that the vast majority of citizens who had health insurance before ACA were already heavily subsidized by government funds via Medicare, Medicaid, and tax subsidies for employer-sponsored insurance ($300 billion for the employer-sponsored policies alone). Studies have shown that 5% of the population accounts for 50% of health expenditures. The least costly half of our population accounts for 3% of the expenditures. (This is, of course, the essential element of risk spreading that makes insurance of anything “work”.)

ACA accomplishments since 2010

23 million citizens have gained health insurance coverage
-coverage that is not denied due to pre-existing conditions
-coverage of children up to 26 yo. on parents’ policy
-more than half of those (13.7 million) gained coverage under expanded Medicaid (by increasing the eligible income levels)
-all but 19 states took the federal subsidy to expand Medicaid coverage

Uninsured citizens dropped from 16% in 2010 to 9% in 2016
91% of U.S. citizens now have health insurance coverage (Spoiler Alert: in our big, or should I say “Hu-u-y-ge”, country that 9% translates into 29 million citizens still un- or underinsured.)

All this without additional net cost over the cost of medical services that was predicted in the U.S. without the ACA, i.e “no net increased cost due to the ACA.” (The largest single source of spending increase since 2013 was “retail pharmaceuticals”.)

Reduced “gender bias” by mandating maternal health benefits (coverage of contraception) as part of essential benefits package.

Mandated some mental health service coverage.

Mandated some coverage of substance abuse services.

What about repeal?

Unlikely, but possible. Outright repeal could immediately create another 23 million people without health insurance which would dump all that cost burden back on the states, the insurance companies, and the health care providers.

Repeal would require 60 votes in the Senate, and the Republicans are 8 short. There is speculation that some Democrats running for reelection in 2018 might join a repeal vote knowing that some of their Democratic colleagues that supported Obamacare lost reelection in 2016. The Gallup poll currently puts the public attitudes toward Obamacare at 50/50 “favorable/unfavorable”.

“Replacement” of selected provisions is more likely since it could be done as part of the “budget reconciliation process” which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes.

Replacement?

Coverage to age 26 on your parent’s policy and ban on denying coverage of pre-existing conditions are so popular that they are here to stay.
What parts might Republicans target to replace?
(An “ACA repeal bill” passed by the Senate in 2015 and vetoed by Obama gives us some clues).

Individual mandate – Even though this was proposed by Republican Mitt Romney and successfully passed the Supreme Court test as a tax, this penalty for not getting health insurance rankles the Republicans, and a sizable portion of the public. Proponents argue that it is essential to incentivize “healthy people” to buy insurance, a fundamental principle of spreading the risk over a large group.

Block grants to the states and/or vouchers for Medicare – Block grants would change this federal standard “entitlement” program into a state-controlled one with variable benefits and premiums. Vouchers, touted as making consumers more “powerful in the marketplace”, really shift the obligations (“unpaid bills”) to the states and health care providers

Reduce income level eligibility for Medicaid from the ACA level of 138% of federal poverty level (about $22,000 for a couple) back down to about $16,000 a year for a couple.

Middle-class subsidies via insurance marketplaces to be replaced by Health Savings Accounts (HSA), tax credits, across-state line insurance policies, and reestablishment of high-risk pools. All of these are advantages to people who have income, often sizable incomes.
-70% of HSAs are currently held by people with over $100,000 annual income.
-Many insurance companies already sell across state lines, but this provision would free companies from state mandated benefits and other state regulations.
-Reestablishment of high risk pools could provide higher premium policies for those with chronic diseases without unduly penalizing healthy individuals. This reflects a trend back toward indemnity or catastrophic insurance policies with few preventative benefits.

Rescind the new taxes to fund the ACA – details on how to pay for replacement provisions TBD.

Maternal health benefits– Trump suggests making contraception available over-the-counter without a prescription, thus avoiding the problem of exempting churches from this mandated benefit. Planned Parenthood would, of course, be defunded.

Medical liability reform – Though a cherished symbol of support of and a psychologically warm and fuzzy concept to physicians, all studies show that no significant cost reductions occur from tort reform because the actual cost of “defensive medicine” is very small compared to the total.

What about ACOs?

Remember them? Accountable Care Organizations are physician groups and hospitals organized together to reduce costs without degrading quality. The first ACOs, so-called “Pioneer” ACOs, could keep a share of any savings if they delivered care to a defined population at a cost below a “target cost” without missing any of the “quality targets.” If they overshot the “target cost”, they would owe money to the federal government at the end of the year.

This is the last year for the original 32 Pioneer ACOs, and only 16 remain in the program. Half have withdrawn from their contracts because of losing money, continuous wrangling over targets, and lack of flexibility in defining risks and benefits. The “Next Generation” ACOs are due to sign up in January 2017, and most will opt for sharing savings without taking financial risk for losses.

Bottom Line:

The vetoed 2015 Senate “ACA repeal bill” had a two-year transition period embedded in it, so even if a repeal bill is passed and Trump signs it the loss of health insurance will not be immediate. Many political experts, if we can still use that label for them after this election, suggest that even “replacement” of ACA provisions will be politically difficult and will take at least two years to pass. A new study by the Urban Institute shows that Paul Ryan’s proposed Republican replacement plan would result in more uninsured citizens than existed before ACA. 80% of those losing insurance would be part of a working family.

How high are the stakes? A 2009 study by Harvard Medical School and the Cambridge Health Alliance estimated that the lack of health insurance led to almost 45,000 unnecessary deaths. “Lack of health insurance can be fatal.”

So, for a variety of reasons, the next two years will be “vel-l-ly in-ter-esting” In the meantime if you have health insurance through a ACA-based insurance marketplace make sure you re-enroll by January 31 to continue coverage.


%d bloggers like this: