Topic: Health Care

Baldwin Resolution Would Expose Sick Patients to Higher Premiums, Cancelled Coverage, Denied Care

The Senate appears poised to vote soon on a Congressional Review Act resolution sponsored by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) that would rescind the Trump administration’s final rule on “short-term limited duration insurance.” Nearly every Senate Democrat has cosponsored the Baldwin resolution because they believe it would protect consumers. It would do exactly the opposite. 

The Baldwin resolution…

  • …would increase the number of uninsured. Various scholars have estimated that by making health insurance more affordable, the Trump short-term plans rule would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by up to 2 million. The Baldwin resolution would rescind that rule, thereby denying health insurance to up to 2 million Americans.
  • …would reduce protections for the sick. The Baldwin resolution would reduce consumer protections in short-term plans and expose sick patients to higher premiums, denied coverage, bankruptcy, and denied care. It would revert to the Obama administration’s 2016 short-term plans rule, which limited short-term plans to 3 months and banned renewals. As state insurance regulators noted at the time, “[There are] no data to support the premise that a three-month limit would protect consumers or markets. In fact, state regulators believe the arbitrary limit proposed in the rule could harm some consumers. For example, if an individual misses the [ACA] open-enrollment period and applies for short-term, limited duration coverage in February, a 3-month policy would not provide coverage until the next policy year (which will start on January 1). The only option would be to buy another short-term policy at the end of the three months, but since the short-term health plans nearly always exclude pre-existing conditions, if the person develops a new condition while covered under the first policy, the condition would be denied as a preexisting condition under the next short-term policy.” The Trump rule allows consumers to purchase coverage that lasts until the next ObamaCare open-enrollment period. The Baldwin resolution would result in that patient being re-underwritten and denied coverage and care for up to nine months.
  • …would not reduce ObamaCare premiums and could increase them. The Trump rule allows consumers to couple short-term plans with standalone renewal guarantees, which allow enrollees who develop expensive illnesses to keep paying healthy-person premiums. Since it gives expensive patients a lower-cost alternative to ObamaCare coverage, the Trump rule can reduce ObamaCare premiums by keeping expensive patients out of those risk pools. In contrast, the Baldwin resolution would force those expensive patients into ObamaCare plans, increasing the cost of ObamaCare coverage to both enrollees and taxpayers. In 2016, state insurance commissioners again explained the fundamental flaw of Baldwin’s approach: “If the concern is that healthy individuals will stay out of the general pool by buying short-term, limited duration coverage, there is nothing in this proposal that would stop that. If consumers are healthy they can continue buying a new policy every three months. Only those who become unhealthy will be unable to afford [short-term plans], and that is not good for the [ACA] risk pools in the long run.”
  • …would make short-term plans less comprehensive. The Baldwin resolution would not protect consumers from inadequate coverage. It would re-create the bad old days when excessive regulation blocked consumers from purchasing more-comprehensive short-term plans. The Congressional Budget Office writes that under the Trump rule only “a small percentage of [short-term] plans would resemble current STLDI plans, which do not meet CBO’s definition of health insurance coverage.” Instead, most short-term plans would “resemble[e] nongroup insurance products sold before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act” that offer “financial protection against high-cost, low-probability medical events.” In other words, the Trump rule allows the sort of health plans consumers want. The Baldwin resolution would make those products disappear again.
  • …would gut conscience protections. The Trump rule protects conscience rights by improving the market for short-term plans, which are exempt from ObamaCare’s contraceptives mandate. The Baldwin resolution would strip away those conscience protections.
  • …would not protect people with preexisting conditions. The Washington Post’s Paige Winfield Cunningham reports it “doesn’t exactly make sense” for Democrats to claim that restricting short-term plans helps patients with preexisting conditions. “Even with the expansion of these short-term plans, the marketplace plans guaranteeing preexisting protections will still be available to those who need them… So expanding the availability of short-term plans…doesn’t mean people with preexisting conditions would lose access to crucial coverage protections.”
  • …is pure symbolism. The Baldwin resolution has zero chance of becoming law. To rescind a final agency rule, Congressional Review Act resolutions must pass both chambers of Congress and receive the president’s signature. The House is unlikely to pass the Baldwin resolution. Even if it did, there is zero chance President Trump would sign a resolution nullifying a rule he himself asked his administration to produce.
  • is terrible politics. Or at least it could be, if opponents expose it as subjecting patients with expensive illnesses to higher premiums, cancelled coverage, medical bankruptcy, and denied care—all to serve supporters’ ideological goal of destroying a free-market alternative to ObamaCare.

Addiction Abuse

Hardly a day goes by without a report in the press about some new addiction. There are warnings about addiction to coffee. Popular psychology publications talk of “extreme sports addiction.” Some news reports even alert us to the perils of chocolate addiction. One gets the impression that life is awash in threats of addiction. People tend to equate the word “addiction” with “abuse.” Ironically, “addiction” is a subject of abuse.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine defines addiction as a “chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry…characterized by the inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving” that continues despite resulting destruction of relationships, economic conditions, and health. A major feature is compulsiveness. Addiction has a biopsychosocial basis with a genetic predisposition and involves neurotransmitters and interactions within reward centers of the brain. This compusliveness is why alcoholics or other drug addicts will return to their substance of abuse even after they have been “detoxed” and despite the fact that they know it will further damage their lives. 

Addiction is not the same as dependence. Yet politicians and many in the media use the two words interchangeably. Physical dependence represents an adaptation to the drug such that abrupt cessation or tapering off too rapidly can precipitate a withdrawal syndrome, which in some cases can be life-threatening. Physical dependence is seen with many categories of drugs besides drugs commonly abused. It is seen for example with many antidepressants, such as fluoxetine (Prozac) and sertraline (Zoloft), and with beta blockers like atenolol and propranolol, used to treat a variety of conditions including hypertension and migraines. Once a patient is properly tapered off of the drug on which they have become physically dependent, they do not feel a craving or compulsion to return to the drug.

Some also confuse tolerance with addiction. Similar to dependency, tolerance is another example of physical adaptation. Tolerance refers to the decrease in one or more effects a drug has on a person after repeated exposure, requiring increases in the dose.

Science journalist Maia Szalavitz, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, ably details how journalists perpetuate this lack of understanding and fuel misguided opioid policies.

Many in the media share responsibility for the mistaken belief that prescription opioids rapidly and readily addict patients—despite the fact that Drs. Nora Volkow and Thomas McLellan of the National Institute on Drug Abuse point out addiction is very uncommon, “even among those with preexisting vulnerabilities.” Cochrane systematic studies in 2010 and 2012 of chronic pain patients found addiction rates in the 1 percent range, and a report on over 568,000 patients in the Aetna database who were prescribed opioids for acute postoperative pain between 2008 and 2016 found a total “misuse” rate of 0.6 percent. 

Equating dependency with addiction caused lawmakers to impose opioid prescription limits that are not evidence-based, and is making patients suffer needlessly after being tapered too abruptly or cut off entirely from their pain medicine. Many, in desperation, seek relief in the black market where they get exposed to heroin and fentanyl. Some resort to suicide. There have been enough reports of suicides that the US Senate is poised to vote on opioid legislation that “would require HHS and the Department of Justice to conduct a study on the effect that federal and state opioid prescribing limits have had on patients — and specifically whether such limits are associated with higher suicide rate.” And complaints about the lack of evidence behind present prescribing policy led Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to announce plans last month for the FDA to develop its own set of evidence-based guidelines.

Now there is talk in media and political circles about the threats of “social media addiction.” But there is not enough evidence to conclude that spending extreme amounts of time on the internet and with social media is an addictive disorder. One of the leading researchers on the subject stresses that most reports on the phenomenon are anecdotal and peer-reviewed scientific research is scarce. A recent Pew study found the majority of social media users would not find it difficult to give it up. The American Psychiatric Association does not consider social media addiction or “internet addiction” a disorder and does not include it in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), considering it an area that requires further research.

This doesn’t stop pundits from warning us about the dangers of social media addiction. Some warnings might be politically motivated. Recent reports suggest Congress might soon get into the act. If that happens, it can threaten freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It can also generate biliions of dollars in government spending on social media addiction treatment.

Before people see more of their rights infringed or are otherwise harmed by unintended consequences, it would do us all a great deal of good to be more accurate and precise in our terminology. It would also help if lawmakers learned more about the matters on which they create policy.

Shrinking Medicare Expenditure

With public healthcare programs accounting for over a trillion dollars of federal spending, efforts to identify and remedy sources of waste are increasing. A new working paper finds: 

There is substantial waste in U.S. healthcare, but little consensus on how to identify or combat it. We identify one specific source of waste: long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). These post-acute care facilities began as a regulatory carve-out for a few dozen specialty hospitals, but have expanded into an industry with over 400 hospitals and $5.4 billion in annual Medicare spending in 2014. We use the entry of LTCHs into local hospital markets and an event study design to estimate LTCHs’ impact. We find that most LTCH patients would have counterfactually received care at Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) – post-acute care facilities that provide medically similar care to LTCHs but are paid significantly less – and that substitution to LTCHs leaves patients unaffected or worse off on all measurable dimensions. Our results imply that Medicare could save about $4.6 billion per year – with no harm to patients – by not allowing for discharge to LTCHs.

The cost of healthcare in the United States remains a significant problem, but eliminating regulatory carve-outs such as LTCHs is one way to address this growing issue.

Research assistant Erin Partin contributed to this blog post.

 

More Futility in the War on Drugs

Despite $8.6 billion spent on the eradication of opium in Afghanistan over the past seventeen years, the US military has failed to stem the flow of Taliban revenue from  the illicit drug trade. Afghanistan produces the majority of the world’s opium, and recent U.S. military escalations have failed to alter the situation. According to a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal:

“Nine months of targeted airstrikes on opium production sites across Afghanistan have failed to put a significant dent in the illegal drug trade that provides the Taliban with hundreds of millions of dollars, according to figures provided by the U.S. military.”

This foreign war on drugs has been no more successful than its domestic counterpart. If U.S. military might cannot suppress the underground market, local police forces have no hope.  Supply side repression does not seem to work, and its costs and unintended consequences are large.

 Research assistant Erin Partin contributed to this blog post.

Doctors as Data Entry Clerks for the Government Health Surveillance System

As a practicing physician I have long been frustrated with the Electronic Health Record (EHR) system the federal government required health care practitioners to adopt by 2014 or face economic sanctions. This manifestation of central planning compelled many doctors to scrap electronic record systems already in place because the planners determined they were not used “meaningfully.” They were forced to buy a government-approved electronic health system and conform their decision-making and practice techniques to algorithms the central planners deem “meaningful.”  Other professions and businesses make use of technology to enhance productivity and quality. This happens organically. Electronic programs are designed to fit around the unique needs and goals of the particular enterprise. But in this instance, it works the other way around: health care practitioners need to conform to the needs and goals of the EHR. This disrupts the thinking process, slows productivity, interrupts the patient-doctor relationship, and increases the risk of error. As Twila Brase, RN, PHN ably details in “Big Brother in the Exam Room,” things go downhill from there.

With painstaking, almost overwhelming detail that makes the reader feel the enormous complexity of the administrative state, Ms. Brase, who is president and co-founder of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), traces the origins and motives that led to Congress passing the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in 2009. The goal from the outset was for the health care regulatory bureaucracy to collect the private health data of the entire population and use it to create a one-size-fits-all standardization of the way medicine is practiced. This standardization is based upon population models, not individual patients. It uses the EHR design to nudge practitioners into surrendering their judgment to the algorithms and guidelines adopted by the regulators. Along the way, the meaningfully used EHR makes practitioners spend the bulk of their time entering data into forms and clicking boxes, providing the regulators with the data needed to generate further standardization.

Brase provides wide-ranging documentation of the way this “meaningful use” of the EHR has led to medical errors and the replication of false information in patients’ health records. She shows how the planners intend to morph the Electronic Health Record into a Comprehensive Health Record (CHR), through the continual addition of new data categories, delving into the details of lifestyle choices that may arguably relate indirectly to health: from sexual proclivities, to recreational behaviors, to gun ownership, to dietary choices. In effect, a meaningfully used Electronic Health Record is nothing more than a government health surveillance system.  As the old saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” If the third party—especially a third party with the monopoly police power of the state—is paying for health care it may demand adherence to lifestyle choices that keep costs down.

All of this data collection and use is made possible by the Orwellian-named Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.  Most patients think of HIPAA as a guarantee that their health records will remain private and confidential. They think all those “HIPAA Privacy” forms they are signing at their doctor’s office is to insure confidentiality. But, as Brase points out very clearly, HIPAA gives numerous exemptions to confidentiality requirements for the purposes of collecting data and enforcing laws. As Brase puts it, 

 It contains the word privacy, leaving most to believe it is what it says, rather than reading it to see what it really is. A more honest title would be “Notice of Federally Authorized Disclosures for Which Patient Consent Is Not Required.”

Rauner Veto Preserves Consumer Protections in Short-Term Plans, Improves ObamaCare’s Risk Pools

Hours ago, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) vetoed legislation that would have subjected enrollees in short-term health insurance plans to higher deductibles, higher administrative costs, higher premiums, and lost coverage. The vetoed bill would have blocked the consumer protections made available in that market by a final rule issued earlier this month by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and would have (further) jeopardized ObamaCare’s risk pools by forcing even more sick patients into those pools.

Short-term plans are exempt from federal health insurance regulations, and as a result offer broader access to providers at a cost that is often 70 percent less than ObamaCare plans.

Rather than allow open competition between those two ways of providing health-insurance protection, the Obama administration sabatoged short-term plans. It forced short-term plan deductibles to reset after three months, and forced consumers in those plans to reenroll every three months, changes that increased administrative costs in that market.

The Obama administration further subjected short-term plan enrollees to medical underwriting after they fell ill – which meant higher premiums and cancelled coverage for the sick. Prior to the Obama rule, a consumer who purchased a short-term plan in January and developed cancer in February would have coverage until the end of December, at which point she could enroll in an ObamaCare plan. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners complained that the Obama rule required that her coverage expire at the end of March – effectively cancelling her coverage and leaving her with no coverage for up to nine months. The Obama administration stripped consumer protections from this market by expanding medical underwriting after enrollees get sick – something Congress has consistently tried to reduce.

Earlier this month, HHS restored and expanded the consumer protections the Obama administration gutted. It allowed short-term plans to cover enrollees for up to 12 months, and allowed insurers to extend short-term plans for up to an additional 24 months, for a total of up to 36 months. These changes allow short-term plans to offer deductibles tallied on an annual basis, rather than deductibles that reset every three months. They spare enrollees and insurers the expense of re-enrolling every three months. Most important, they allow short-term plans to protect enrollees who get sick from medical underwriting at least until they again become eligible to enroll in an ObamaCare plan the following January.

Indeed, HHS clarified that because the agency has no authority to regulate standalone “renewal guarantees” that allow short-term plan enrollees who fall ill to continue paying healthy-person premiums, “it may be possible for a consumer to maintain coverage under short-term, limited-duration insurance policies for extended periods of time” by “stringing together coverage under separate policies offered by the same or different issuers, for total coverage periods that would exceed 36 months.” As HHS Secretary Alex Azar explains, this helps ObamaCare:

Our decision to allow renewability and separate premium protections could also allow consumers to hold on to their short-term coverage if they get sick, rather than going to the exchanges, which improves the exchange risk pools.

I made that very argument in my comments on the proposed rule.

Illinois law automatically adopts whatever rules and definitions the federal government creates for short-term plans. If Illinois legislators had just done nothing, millions of Illinois residents automatically would have had a health insurance option that is more affordable and provides better coverage than ObamaCare.

But this is Illinois.

In their infinite wisdom, Illinois legislators passed legislation that once again would have exposed short-term plan enrollees higher deductibles, higher administrative costs, higher premiums, and cancelled coverage. The bill would have:

  • Required that initial contract terms for short-term plans last no longer than six months. It further provided that such plans could be extended for no more than six additional months.
  • Mandated that consumers who wish to keep purchasing consecutive short-term plans go uninsured for 60 days. Some consumers would inevitably develop expensive conditions during that period, and therefore be left with no coverage until the next ObamaCare open enrollment period. 
  • Prohibited renewal guarantees. The legislation specifically cut off this option. As a result, it would have dumped every single short-term plan enrollee with an expensive illness into the Exchanges. Ironically, Illinois legislators who thought they were bolstering ObamaCare actually passed a bill that would have sabotaged it.

Thankfully, Gov. Rauner stopped this ignorant, ridiculous effort to deny consumer protections to short-term plan enrollees. All eyes now turn to California, where Gov. Jerry Brown (D) must sign or veto legislation that would deny medical care to those who miss ObamaCare’s open enrollment period – by banning short-term plans altogether.

Topics:

The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again

Late last week UPI news ran a report by E.J. Mundell with the headline, “Government efforts to curb opioid prescriptions might have backfired.” It cites two separate studies published online in JAMA Surgery on August 22 that examined two different restrictive opioid policies that fell victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The first study, by researchers at the University of Michigan, evaluated the impact of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2014 rescheduling of hydrocodone (Vicodin) from Schedule III to Schedule II. Prescriptions for Schedule III narcotics may be phoned or faxed in by providers, but Schedule II narcotics require the patient to see the prescriber in person in order to obtain a prescription. The DEA’s goal was to reduce the number of Vicodin pills, popular with non-medical users, available for diversion to the black market.

The study looked at 21,955 post-surgical patients across 75 hospitals in Michigan between 2012 and 2015 and found that the number of hydrocodone pills prescribed after the 2014 schedule change increased by an average of seven 5mg tablets. The total Oral Morphine Equivalent of prescribed hydrocodone did not change significantly after the DEA made hydrocodone Schedule II. However, the refill rate decreased after the change. The study’s abstract concluded, “Changing hydrocodone from schedule III to schedule II was associated with an increase in the amount of opioids filled in the initial prescription following surgery.”

As a practicing general surgeon, my initial reaction to this study was: “Tell me something I don’t know.” Prior to the 2014 schedule change, I would often start off prescribing a small amount of hydrocodone to some of my post-op patients (depending upon the procedure and the patient’s medical history) with the knowledge that I can phone in a refill for those patients who were still in need of it for their pain after the initial supply ran out. Once it was rescheduled, I changed my prescribing habits. Not wanting any of my patients to run out after hours, over a weekend, or on a holiday—when the office is closed and their only recourse would be to go to an emergency room or urgent care center to get a prescription refill—I increased the amount I prescribe (based on my best estimate of the maximum amount of days any individual patient might need hydrocodone) to reduce the chances of them needing a refill. This results in some patients having leftover Vicodin pills in their medicine cabinet. On the other hand, fewer of those patients need refills.

Not surprisingly, many of my clinical peers have done the same thing. It’s not a surprise because most physicians place the interests of their patients ahead of the interests of regulators and bureaucrats. So the adjustment made in postoperative hydrocodone prescribing was basically a “no brainer.”