Time: Gingrich Wants Scrutiny Of IVF Clinics: Why That’s Not The Worst Idea

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich hit upon a reproductive minefield on Sunday when he called for deeper scrutiny of in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics, where women go for high-tech help to conceive. Gingrich, who believes life begins at conception, wants a commission to dissect the ethical issues attendant with assisted reproductive technology. Ostensibly, it’s not the babies born from IVF he’s got a problem with; it’s the potential babies — and there are lots and lots of them — who aren’t. … The creation of excess embryos is central to the IVF process. … For most women, no more than two embryos are recommended for transfer. Considering that hyperstimulation can yield more than a dozen embryos — hello, Octomom — the question of what to do with the leftovers is one that can’t be ignored (Bonnie Rochman, 1/30).

Columbia Journalism Review: Medicare Versus Obamacare

In the last few days, three mainstream news outlets elevated “Medicare: The Political Story” into the headlines. It was good to see that The New York Times, PBS’s Need To Know, and Reuters, all of which reach large audiences, have realized Medicare may be the most important health story of the campaign. (Yes, perhaps more important than the Supreme Court’s ruling on the individual mandate.) During the 2008 campaign, as Campaign Desk pointed out at the time, the candidates ignored Medicare. … Now that large outlets have anointed Medicare politics as legitimate news, we’ll probably see a lot more similar stories. That’s fine, but a diet of nothing but political stories shortchanges the public, since those stories omit crucial information about what Medicare is and what opponents want it to become (Trudy Lieberman, 1/30).

National Review: Free Birth Control Vs. Freedom Of Religion

When Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire, he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking whether he should execute Christians who refused to burn incense in worship of the emperor. I thought of Pliny when I read that the Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine. … The birth-control rule is the latest and most egregious example of government forcing religious organizations to conform their operations to reigning secular moral values. In this sense, faith organizations are being compelled to participate in a metaphorical Caesar worship (Wesley J. Smith, 1/30).

Photo courtesy of Rasiel Suarez/Creative Commons license

Governing: School-Based Health Centers Reap Benefits

In more than 2,000 schools throughout the country, students can get free comprehensive medical, mental health and sometimes dental care without ever leaving school property. School-based health centers (SBHCs) are fully staffed clinics located in or on school property. Each one is different, but most offer a full range of services, including primary care, mental health and social services. Most are in schools that serve the neediest students and are funded by state governments, the feds and private foundations. … Having a full-service health clinic in schools has many benefits. … Luckily, virtually every entity that applied for the new federal SBHC grants received at least a portion of the funds. Unlike the rest of the federal health law, advocates argue, school-based health centers are a nonpartisan solution to a pervasive problem (Caroline Cournoyer, February 2012).

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By Michelle Andrews

The 2010 health-care overhaul creates state-based health plans for those who have medical conditions that make them uninsurable in the private market.

These “preexisting-condition insurance plans” (PCIPs) are intended to act as a bridge until 2014, when insurers will no longer be able to refuse to cover people with medical problems or charge them more than other consumers.

As of November, about 45,000 people had signed up for those plans, far fewer than the up to 400,000 that was originally projected.

However, there is a much larger group, more than 220,000 people, who have coverage through 35 state high-risk pools that were in existence before the overhaul was passed.

Because of restrictions in the new law, they can’t sign up for the PCIP plans, even though the coverage is often cheaper (thanks in part to federal funding) and more comprehensive. For these people, 2014 can’t come soon enough..

Together they pay $1,304 a month for coverage. Chris’s plan has a $2,500 deductible while Kristi’s is $1,000. The plans generally cover 80 percent of their medical bills.

Chris Petersen, who supported the health-care overhaul, nevertheless thinks the law failed him and his wife. “This is the biggest check I write out every month,” he says. “The new federal plan would have been a lot cheaper.”

If the Petersens had been allowed to sign up with the PCIP in Iowa, their combined premium would have been $958 for policies with $1,000 deductibles.

More From This Series: Insuring Your Health

People such as the Petersens, however, are stuck between a rock and a hard place: To qualify for a PCIP, they must first be uninsured for six months.

Experts say this requirement was included in the law to discourage people in the existing state high-risk pools and other private insurance plans from doing exactly what they would do if better, cheaper coverage became available: switch plans.

It’s clear why they might be tempted. Premiums in the new pools can’t exceed rates for standard individual coverage in the state, while the high-risk pools in some states charge twice that. The new plans must also cover preexisting conditions immediately, in contrast to the older state pools, some of which exclude such coverage for up to a year.

“Much as everybody would like to drop [the six-month requirement], if you did you’d have to increase expenditures,” says Sandy Praeger, the Kansas insurance commissioner, who chairs the health insurance and managed-care committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Federal funding for the program through 2013 is $5 billion.

Learn about Washington State’s Pre-existing Condition Insurance here.

Although enrollment in the PCIPs has been far lower than originally projected, health-care spending by the individuals who have signed up for coverage has been much higher than anticipated, say experts.

“The people coming into the PCIPs act more like the long-term uninsured,” says Jean Hall, an associate research professor at the University of Kansas who co-authored a report about the PCIPs for the Commonwealth Fund. “They’re not accustomed to managing on a day-to-day basis; they’re accustomed to going to the emergency department when things get bad.”

Nine states have asked the Department of Health and Human Services for more money to fund their PCIPs in 2012. However, it appears the program won’t run out of money soon. Through the end of September 2011, just $386 million of the $5 billion allocated had been spent, according to HHS figures.

(Some experts caution against relying too much on September spending figures, since enrollment has increased since then and claims may take months to clear.)

“As you would expect, some states have exceeded projections and others have not,” says an HHS spokesman. “We have the capacity to accommodate the needs of the program.”

For people who can’t get into the new plans, however, that’s small comfort.

Jill Judy and Mark Brown signed up for the Arkansas high-risk pool a few years ago when Mark’s benefits ran out after his retirement from a management job at a company that repossesses boats. Judy, 49, has mild cerebral palsy, which she hasn’t been treated for since she was a child, and Brown, 62, had an angioplasty 15 years ago and still sees a cardiologist.

Individual insurers wouldn’t cover them, so they ended up in the state’s high-risk pool. Although Judy says she’s grateful that she has coverage, it’s hardly ideal.

The premiums for the two of them come to just under $1,000 a month. But the plan has a $10,000 deductible and a $1 million cap on lifetime benefits. “People like my husband and myself are paying $12,000 a year for nothing,” she says.

She estimates they could get better coverage and save 30 percent in the Arkansas PCIP. “But we don’t qualify because we’re not willing to be uninsured for six months,” she says. “It’s screwy.”

Please send comments or ideas for future topics for the Insuring Your Health column to questions@kaiserhealthnews.org.

Local Resources:

• Statewide Health Insurance Benifits Advisors (SHIBA) provides free, unbiased advice from volunteers: www.oic.wa.gov/shiba/
• Benefits.gov: www.benefits.gov
• King County Project Access: www.kcprojectaccess.org
• Washington Basic Health (insurance assistance): www.basichealth.hca.wa.gov/understanding.shtml
• Washington Health Plan: www.washingtonhealth.hca.wa.gov
• Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner: www.insurance.wa.gov
• To search for a community clinic near you go to: http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Photo by Sanja Gjenero

Imagine if finding out the cost of a particular treatment or procedure at a doctors’ office was as easy as locating the prices of entrees at a restaurant. The menu might read: school physicals – $40; office visit for a cold – $80; diabetes screening – $200.

But to the dismay of some consumer advocates, this push for health care pricing transparency never made it out of the kitchen.

While a Florida state House committee approved legislation that would expand the state’s requirement that certain providers post the out-of-pocket prices of common health care services, a state Senate committee shot down a similar measure after an aggressive lobbying push by health care provider groups.

Organizations representing the state’s doctors weren’t wild about the idea that certain facilities would have to display bulletin-board sized postings of their prices.

Jeff Scott, general counsel for the Florida Medical Association, said that providers are all for transparency, but they don’t need the government telling them exactly how they should do it.

“Next thing you know they’re going to say it has to be neon or include pictures,” he said.

But providers’ most strenuous objections were to provisions in the legislation that would require providers to disclose prices to out-of-network patients and limit so-called balance billing, which happens in health care settings when providers bill patients the difference between what they charge for a service and what insurers pay it.

Meanwhile, the state already requires urgent care centers to post in their reception area the prices of their 50 most frequently used services, and the posting must be at least 15 square feet.  Physicians are not required to do so, but they must follow the same rules if they post prices voluntarily.

Under the proposed legislation, ambulatory care centers and diagnostic-imaging centers would have had to follow the same rules as urgent care centers, and the original bills also would have expanded the requirement to physicians.

The House committee-approved bill softened this language to maintain the voluntary status quo for doctors. Both bills would have required physicians to provide patients with a written statement of prices at each visit.

Richard Polangin, health care policy coordinator for the Florida Public Interest Research Group, said the legislation would have been a boon for consumers, many of whom are unaware that prices can vary among doctors and facilities.

The bills would “enable persons who must pay for doctor visits, diagnostic images such as CT scans and MRIs, and for care at ambulatory surgery centers, to know the cost in advance,” he said. “The uninsured and persons with insurance deductibles would be able to make more informed health care decisions.”

Insurers and business groups also supported the legislation. And, though the measure’s future is uncertain, at least one person involved in the lobbying effort said work would continue.

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The latest casualty of the Great Recession may soon be the nation’s elderly. Cuts in government payments for patient care and less construction of new nursing homes are already taking a toll.

Add to this the aging baby boom generation and you have a worst-case scenario in which older people who need full-time care won’t be able to get it.

“We believe we’re at a tipping point,” says Mark Parkinson, head of the American Health Care Association (AHCA), which represents nursing homes.

If so, the timing couldn’t be worse. The first baby boomers hit age 65 last year. By 2030, 20 percent of the U.S. population will be at least 65, up from 13 percent today.

Number of Persons 65+ in the U.S. 1900 - 2030 (numbers in millions) - U.S. Administration on Aging

In that same period, the number of 85-year-olds will increase more than 50 percent and the number of 100-year-olds nearly triple. But the number of nursing homes dropped almost 9 percent from 2000 to 2009.

Nursing homes and hospitals are places that everyone wants to avoid … until they can’t. Most people say they want to age at home, but as retiring boomers get older, more will need the type of 24-hour care that only a nursing home or hospital can offer.

That’s because the prevalence of chronic illnesses like Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and diabetes increases with age. Fifty-five percent of all cancers are diagnosed in individuals 65 and older, and by 2030, 7.7 million of those 65 and older will suffer from Alzheimer’s, 50 percent more than today according to the Alzheimer’s Association.

Several trends are cutting into the number of nursing homes. Many homes were constructed during the 1960s under Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. Often those homes are closed because they are old or, with their long hallways and large, multi-resident rooms, don’t fit what current residents want, says Robert Kramer of the National Investment Center for the Seniors Housing and Care Industry.

But the recession has made getting private financing for new nursing home construction tougher. From 2007 to 2011, the number of under-construction nursing home units (the sections of a facility that provide only nursing care) declined by a third.

“I cannot tell you of anyone who has actually developed a new skilled nursing facility in at least the last five years in California,” says Edward Steinfeldt, a consultant to developers of retirement housing and health care.

And existing nursing homes are struggling. They long have lost money on patients whose stays are covered by state-run Medicaid programs, which pay for long-term care for chronically or terminally ill patients who have run out of money.

According to a report this month by the AHCA, in 2011 nursing homes lost at least $20 per Medicaid resident per day nationwide. Total losses came to $6.3 billion nationally, the highest yearly total ever, with higher deficits to come next year, according to the report.

That’s a huge hit since Medicare payments are responsible for more than 20 percent of nursing home revenues. (Medicaid provides about 50 percent of revenues, and most of the rest comes from private long-term care insurance and people who pay out of pocket.)

For the 187-bed nonprofit Lutheran Home in Milwaukee, which has gross receipts of about $20 million, the Medicare slash will take $700,000 to $750,000 straight off the organization’s bottom line this year says CEO Scott McFadden.

The real estate crash has added to nursing homes’ budget crunch. Many clients sell their homes and use the money to pay out of pocket for long-term care services from a nursing home.

Related Article: Tools to help you choose a good nursing home.

By obliterating more than $8 trillion in home equity, the collapse cut the number of patients who can pay their own way. McFadden says that the private-paying clients his home serves used to run out of money in two or three years. Now they’re broke much more quickly.

Once they can’t pay, Medicaid picks up only some of the tab, and the Lutheran Home then starts losing money on them. It’s illegal for a Medicaid-certified nursing home to ask a patient to leave just because they run out of money.

Residing at a nursing home is not cheap. The median annual cost of a private U.S. nursing home room rose to $77,745 in 2011—up almost 30 percent from 2005.

People without chronic conditions have less costly options—it takes about $43,500 yearly to pay for a home health care aide who doesn’t have specialized medical skills, and $39,000 to live in an assisted living facility that provides help with activities of daily life like cooking, but doesn’t necessarily offer health care services.

If nursing homes continue to be squeezed, they may need to cut more staff. A November 2011 report by the University of California-San Francisco concluded that poor quality of care is already endemic in many nursing homes, especially the largest for-profit chains where staffing levels have been cut the deepest to save money.

Local Resources for nursing homes and senior care

• Aging & Disability Services – Seattle/King County: www.agingkingcounty.org
• Aging & Disability Services Administration – Washington State: www.aasa.dshs.wa.gov
• Commission on Accreditation of Nursing Home Facilities: www.carf.org
• Eldercare Locator: www.eldercare.gov/Eldercare.NET/Public/Home.aspx
• Long-term Care Information: www.longtermcare.gov
• Medicare’s Nursing Home Compare service.
• Medicare: Alternatives to Nursing Home Care

Parkinson maintains that so far, homes in his association are keeping up their level of service with less money by eliminating managers, freezing wages, and cutting capital improvements like painting walls and replacing carpets—anything to avoid laying off caregiver staff.

Bill Mulligan, a managing director at Ziegler Capital Management, which provides low-cost financing for nursing home developments, argues that given the decreasing supply and rising demand, nursing homes are still a good investment.

“The demographics are going to level off the number [of homes], maybe even increase it at some point,” he says. But Steinfeldt, who also works with developers, has little confidence in their profitability: “Why would you go into a business that can’t cover its costs?”

If major shortages of nursing home space do surface, they’ll likely show up in urban and high-poverty areas first. Widespread waiting lists have already been reported in Tallahassee in Florida, Rapid City in South Dakota, and San Francisco. Homes also have been closing in poor neighborhoods—a study published last year in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that nursing homes shut down there more often than elsewhere (the hardest hit cities were New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Dallas).

And Medicaid patients may have an increasingly hard time finding nursing homes that will take them–Kramer says when homes replace their old buildings, they often cut the number of beds to make space for more private rooms and sophisticated medical facilities that can attract the higher paying Medicare and private-pay clients.

“Every adult is going to face this nursing home crisis in some way, whether it’s through their own care or the care of loved ones,” says McFadden. “Ignoring it is not going to make it better.”

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

(Kaiser Health News in an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)

Majority Of Americans Think Ideology Will Affect High Court’s Ruling On Health Law 

By Mary Agnes Carey
KHN Staff Writer

With the Supreme Court just two months away from hearing a historic legal challenge to the 2010 health law, nearly 60 percent of the public expects the justices to depend more on personal ideology than a legal analysis of the individual mandate, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s January health tracking poll.

Just 28 percent of those surveyed believe the justices will base their decision on the mandate without regard to politics and ideology, according to the survey.

The poll also asked about general views of the Supreme Court and found three quarters of the public believe that justices sometimes let their ideological views influence their decisions.

Seventeen percent of those surveyed say justices usually decide cases based on legal analysis.

The court will hear oral arguments in March in a case brought by 26 states and others.

As the Republican presidential nomination fight continues, the poll also found that most Republicans are not swayed by charges from GOP contenders that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holds health policy views similar to those of President Barack Obama.

Romney’s opponents have repeatedly criticized him for signing a 2006 Massachusetts law that is similar in some aspects to the federal health law.

But the poll found that 49 percent of Republicans say the two men’s views are different, while three in 10 say they are similar. Twenty-two percent had no opinion.

However, when asked specifically for their opinions about the 2006 Massachusetts health law, 69 percent of likely GOP primary voters responded that they didn’t know enough to say whether they viewed the law favorably or unfavorably.

Furthermore, 64 percent of these voters said they don’t know enough to judge whether the Massachusetts law is similar to or different from the 2010 federal health law.

The poll also found that the individual mandate, a requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine, remains unpopular, with 67 percent of Americans having an unfavorable view of the provision and 30 percent supporting it.

The January poll found that 37 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the health law while 44 percent have an unfavorable view.

In the foundation’s December tracking poll, 41 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the law while 43 percent had an unfavorable view.

The Kaiser poll surveyed 1,206 adults from Jan. 12 to 17. It has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.