Time filter

Source Type

Hartman M.,MediCaid | Martin A.B.,Office of the Actuary | Benson J.,Office of the Actuary | Catlin A.,National Health Statistics Group
Health Affairs | Year: 2013

In 2011 US health care spending grew 3.9 percent to reach $2.7 trillion, marking the third consecutive year of relatively slow growth. Growth in national health spending closely tracked growth in nominal gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 and 2011, and health spending as a share of GDP remained stable from 2009 through 2011, at 17.9 percent. Even as growth in spending at the national level has remained stable, personal health care spending growth accelerated in 2011 (from 3.7 percent to 4.1 percent), in part because of faster growth in spending for prescription drugs and physician and clinical services. There were also divergent trends in spending growth in 2011 depending on the payment source: Medicaid spending growth slowed, while growth in Medicare, private health insurance, and out-of-pocket spending accelerated. Overall, there was relatively slow growth in incomes, jobs, and GDP in 2011, which raises questions about whether US health care spending will rebound over the next few years as it typically has after past economic downturns. © 2013 Project HOPE-The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.


News Article | March 3, 2017
Site: news.yahoo.com

FILE - In this Jan. 24, 2017 file photo, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton speaks in St. Paul, Minn. Minnesota officials are bracing for billions of dollars in additional health care expenses if congressional Republicans enact a plan they're discussing to replace the Affordable Care Act, according to a draft document obtained by The Associated Press. Dayton said this week that he wants to wait and see how the federal government proceeds on health care. (AP Photo/Jim Mone File) ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota officials are bracing for billions of dollars in additional health care expenses if congressional Republicans enact a plan they're discussing to replace the Affordable Care Act, according to a draft document obtained by The Associated Press. The planning document shows that the GOP proposal, a draft of which was circulated last week, would cut $1.3 billion next year from the state's low-income health care program that covers roughly one-sixth of its 5.5 million residents. By 2021, the losses would accumulate to more than $5 billion, eventually costing the state $6 billion a year starting in 2029. That analysis was prepared by the state's Department of Human Services, which runs those programs. It illustrates the uncertainty states across the nation are grappling with over how President Donald Trump and Congress will reshape the health care law championed by President Barack Obama. And it provides one of the first concrete estimates of what the emerging GOP plan would cost a state that expanded Medicaid. Some states fear that the final product will force states to choose between cutting popular health care programs for low-income residents or picking up far more of the tab. Democratic and Republican governors alike have expressed alarm about potential changes to Medicaid as members of Congress have faced backlash at town halls in their home districts. The possibility that Minnesota could be on the hook for more federal costs is weighing heavily on some state lawmakers as they start assembling a new, two-year budget. If the Medicaid changes were passed, a top Minnesota Democrat said it would undoubtedly trigger cuts to critical coverage for elderly and sick residents. "We're making promises we're not going to be able to keep," state Sen. Tony Lourey said Thursday. Minnesota is one of 31 states — plus the District of Columbia — that participated in Medicaid expansion, a marquee part of Obama's health care law that helped expand coverage to an additional 10 million low-income residents. The draft legislation would end that expansion and reduce overall spending by providing states with a fixed, annual amount per recipient in response to Republican criticism that states currently have little incentive to keep expenses under control. Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Emily Piper said that was a grave mistake, calling it "code for cuts to programs for the poor, elderly, and people with disabilities." The financial hit that states may face varies drastically based on how many residents are covered on Medicaid and to what extent the federal government currently covers those costs. In a letter last week, a group of seven Republican governors urged Trump and Congress not to shift the financial burden to states. "We must ensure that people do not have the rug pulled out from under them and are not left without access to care, especially during the transition," according to a copy of the letter obtained by the AP. Minnesota and many other states covered many low-income residents before the health care overhaul, but the Medicaid expansion sent out more federal dollars and covered more people. To shift that funding back, Lynn Blewett of State Health Access Data Assistance Center at the University of Minnesota said, is "going to be very hard to go backward and get to where we were before the ACA." The Medicaid change is just one of many pieces of the evolving GOP plan to replace Obamacare. Their proposals also call to eliminate the mandate that every American buy health insurance and scrap fines on individual who don't have coverage while maintaining some of the law's most popular components, including a requirement that insurers allow young adults to remain on parental coverage until they turn 26. According to the planning document, the changes could entirely eliminate Minnesota's so-called Basic Health Plan, a supplemental program called MinnesotaCare that covers nearly 100,000 "working poor" residents. Only Minnesota and New York have implemented those plans, and coverage in both has soared since the health care law was implemented. The potential funding loss adds to turmoil in Minnesota's health care system. Lawmakers took an extraordinary measure earlier this year to offset massive premium increases for shoppers buying coverage on their own, tapping $312 million of rainy day funds to help keep down monthly rates. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton said this week that he wants to wait and see how the federal government proceeds on health care. "To try to anticipate what they're going to do when they don't know themselves ... is really impossible," he said. Associated Press writer Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington contributed to this report.


Shaw F.E.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Asomugha C.N.,MediCaid | Conway P.H.,MediCaid | Rein A.S.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Lancet | Year: 2014

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was enacted by the US Congress in 2010, marks the greatest change in US health policy since the 1960s. The law is intended to address fundamental problems within the US health system, including the high and rising cost of care, inadequate access to health insurance and health services for many Americans, and low health-care efficiency and quality. By 2019, the law will bring health coverage-and the health benefits of insurance-to an estimated 25 million more Americans. It has already restrained discriminatory insurance practices, made coverage more affordable, and realised new provisions to curb costs (including tests of new health-care delivery models). The new law establishes the first National Prevention Strategy, adds substantial new funding for prevention and public health programmes, and promotes the use of recommended clinical preventive services and other measures, and thus represents a major opportunity for prevention and public health. The law also provides impetus for greater collaboration between the US health-care and public health systems, which have traditionally operated separately with little interaction. Taken together, the various effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can advance the health of the US population.


The Affordable Care Act established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to test innovative payment and service delivery models. The goal is to reduce program expenditures while preserving or improving the quality of care provided to beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Central to the success of the Innovation Center is a new, rapid-cycle approach to evaluation. This article describes that approach-setting forth how the Rapid Cycle Evaluation Group aims to deliver frequent feedback to providers in support of continuous quality improvement, while rigorously evaluating the outcomes of each model tested. This article also describes the relationship between the group's work and that of the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which plays a central role in the assessment of new models. © 2013 Project HOPE-The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.


Hamilton T.E.,MediCaid
Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation | Year: 2013

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article conveys early findings with respect to changes in patient and graft survival since Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations for Medicare coverage of solid organ transplantation became effective on 28 June 2007. RECENT FINDINGS: Programmes cited by CMS for subpar outcomes have strong incentives to improve performance and have risen to the challenge. Adult kidney programmes that entered into System Improvement Agreements or were approved for mitigating factors by CMS, for which there is a 2-year postsurvey tracking period (N =  15), improved their standardized mortality ratio (SMR) for 1-year posttransplant patient survival from 2.05 to 1.17 on average. Volume in some of those programmes tended to decline, whereas national volume increased. Nationally, average donor risk across U.S. adult kidney transplant programmes increased approximately 6% from CY2001 through CY2010. Average recipient risk also increased. Despite increased risk profiles, national survival rates for all organ types continued to increase from 2007 through 2010. SUMMARY: People who receive transplants from programmes cited by CMS for subpar outcomes tend to have much improved prospects for posttransplant survival. Individuals waitlisted in those programmes may face lower odds of receiving a transplant, at least temporarily, due to the tendency of such programmes to reduce volume as they regroup to improve their outcomes. © 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.


Those in practice find that the fee-for-service system does not adequately value the contributions made by primary care. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) was created by the Affordable Care Act to test new models of health care delivery to improve the quality of care while lowering costs. All programs coming out of the Innovation Center are tests of new payment and service delivery models. By changing both payment and delivery models and moving to a payment model that rewards physicians for quality of care instead of volume of care, we may be able to achieve the kind of health care patients want to receive and primary care physicians want to provide.


Lochner K.A.,MediCaid
Preventing chronic disease | Year: 2013

The increase in chronic health conditions among Medicare beneficiaries has implications for the Medicare system. The objective of this study was to use the US Department of Health and Human Services Strategic Framework on multiple chronic conditions as a basis to examine the prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among Medicare beneficiaries. We analyzed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrative claims data for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in the fee-for-service program in 2010. We included approximately 31 million Medicare beneficiaries and examined 15 chronic conditions. A beneficiary was considered to have a chronic condition if a Medicare claim indicated that the beneficiary received a service or treatment for the condition. We defined the prevalence of multiple chronic conditions as having 2 or more chronic conditions. Overall, 68.4% of Medicare beneficiaries had 2 or more chronic conditions and 36.4% had 4 or more chronic conditions. The prevalence of multiple chronic conditions increased with age and was more prevalent among women than men across all age groups. Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women had the highest prevalence of 4 or more chronic conditions, whereas Asian or Pacific Islander men and women, in general, had the lowest. The prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among the Medicare fee-for-service population varies across demographic groups. Multiple chronic conditions appear to be more prevalent among women, particularly non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women, and among beneficiaries eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Our findings can help public health researchers target prevention and management strategies to improve care and reduce costs for people with multiple chronic conditions.


Public substance abuse treatment services have largely operated as an independent part of the overall health care system, with unique methods of administration, funding, and service delivery. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 and other recent health care reforms, coupled with declines in state general revenue spending, will change this. Overall funding for these substance abuse services should increase, and they should be better integrated into the mainstream of general health care. Reform provisions are also likely to expand the variety of substance abuse treatment providers and shift services away from residential and standalone programs toward outpatient programs and more integrated programs or care systems. As a result, patients should have better access to care that is more medically based and person-centered. © 2011 Project HOPE-The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.


Hartman M.,MediCaid | Martin A.B.,MediCaid | Lassman D.,MediCaid | Catlin A.,National Health Statistics Group
Health Affairs | Year: 2015

In 2013 US health care spending increased 3.6 percent to $2.9 trillion, or 9,255 per person. The share of gross domestic product devoted to health care spending has remained at 17.4 percent since 2009. Health care spending decelerated 0.5 percentage point in 2013, compared to 2012, as a result of slower growth in private health insurance and Medicare spending. Slower growth in spending for hospital care, investments in medical structures and equipment, and spending for physician and clinical care also contributed to the low overall increase. © 2014 Project HOPE-The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.


Martin A.B.,MediCaid | Hartman M.,CMS Office of the Actuary | Benson J.,CMS Office of the Actuary | Catlin A.,National Health Statistics Group
Health Affairs | Year: 2016

US health care spending increased 5.3 percent to $3.0 trillion in 2014. On a per capita basis, health spending was $9,523 in 2014, an increase of 4.5 percent from 2013. The share of gross domestic product devoted to health care spending was 17.5 percent, up from 17.3 percent in 2013. The faster growth in 2014 that followed five consecutive years of historically low growth was primarily due to the major coverage expansions under the Affordable Care Act, particularly for Medicaid and private health insurance, which contributed to an increase in the insured share of the population. Additionally, the introduction of new hepatitis C drugs contributed to rapid growth in retail prescription drug expenditures, which increased by 12.2 percent in 2014. Spending by the federal government grew at a faster rate in 2014 than spending by other sponsors of health care, leading to a 2-percentage-point increase in its share of total health care spending between 2013 and 2014.

Loading MediCaid collaborators
Loading MediCaid collaborators