AARP Issues Statement on Recent Senate Vote to Proceed on Health Care Bill

AARP Issues Statement on Recent Senate Vote to Proceed on Health Care Bill


In response to Tuesday’s Senate vote on the motion to proceed to consider a health care bill that would cut Medicare and Medicaid and impose an Age Tax on older Americans, AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond released the following statement:

“AARP is disheartened that a majority of Senators voted to move forward on a bill that would devastate millions of Americans. Today’s vote means the Senate is one step closer to passing legislation that will price gouge people over age 50 and strip health insurance from tens of millions of Americans.

“AARP will continue fighting to stop the Senate from passing any bill that increases costs, imposes an Age Tax, strips coverage from people, cuts Medicare, and cuts the Medicaid services seniors need to stay in their homes.

“Any Senator considering voting for the health care bill should understand the consequences of ignoring AARP’s 38 million members. People over age 50 overwhelmingly vote and they will remember who voted to give them a $13,000 premium hike. AARP will print every Senator’s vote in AARP Bulletin, a publication read by 30.4 million people.

“None of the current bills is the right way to fix health care. AARP stands ready to work with Congress on bipartisan solutions that will lower costs and improve care.”

To learn more, visit www.aarp.org or follow @AARP and @AARPadvocates on social media.



Source link

The Senate Health Reform Bill Slashes Medicaid Severely

The Senate Health Reform Bill Slashes Medicaid Severely


The Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) now under consideration in the Senate would drastically alter the Medicaid program. The proposed Senate bill would change the way the federal government currently funds Medicaid by limiting federal funding and shifting cost over time to both states and Medicaid enrollees. BCRA would subject older adults, adults with disabilities, and children to mandatory per enrollee caps beginning in 2020. State Medicaid programs would have the option to choose between block grants and per enrollee caps for non-elderly non-disabled non-expansion adults.

The Senate bill would start out using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index (M-CPI)—a measure of the average out-of-pocket cost of medical care services used by an average consumer—as the growth rate for per enrollee caps.  However, beginning in 2025, it would slash the growth rate to the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U)—a measure of general inflation that examines out-of-pocket household spending on goods and services used for everyday living. CPI-U does not tie closely to medical costs and will not reflect population growth or the impact of aging. To be clear, none of the proposed growth factors—M-CPI, M-CPI+1, and CPI-U— keep pace with the growth in Medicaid spending.

 

 

 

Although studies have examined the impact of Medicaid spending cuts in the House-passed healthcare bill over a 10 year period (e.g. [CBO] [CMS] [Urban Institute]) we know of none that examine the impacts over a longer time horizon. To fill this gap, the AARP Public Policy Institute has developed a model that looks out an additional decade to capture impacts on Medicaid spending between 2027 and 2036.

By dramatically reducing the per capita cap growth factor beginning in 2025, we project that the Senate bill would cut between $2.0 and $3.8 trillion from total (federal and state) Medicaid spending over the 20-year period between 2017 and 2036 for the four non-expansion Medicaid enrollment groups: older adults, adults with disabilities, children, and non-expansion adults (children with disabilities are excluded because BCRA does not subject them to capped funding). A cut of this magnitude threatens the viability of the program in unprecedented ways and will increase the number of people who no longer have access to essential healthcare services and critical supports.  The projections do not include the proposed cuts to the adult expansion population, which would also be considerable.

Previous analysis by the AARP Public Policy Institute discusses why capping Medicaid is flawed and would leave states and the poorest and sickest Americans holding the bag for the shortfalls that will most certainly occur.

Table 1 shows the cumulative 20-year cuts to Medicaid by eligibility group under the Senate health reform bill for three growth rate projections.  The bill would cap per enrollee cost growth using two measures of inflation (M-CPI and CPI-U), which are highly variable and uncertain, though well short of what is needed to maintain the integrity of the Medicaid program.  It is difficult to plan for such uncertain growth rates, and reasonable projections are far apart.

We present the high, middle, and low case for M-CPI/CPI-U growth rates based on the following:

  • Low Case. Based on historical growth rates. Over the last five years (2012-2016), the M-CPI growth rate has averaged 3.0% per year, and the CPI-U growth rate has averaged 1.32% per year.
  • Middle Case. Based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. CBO projects M-CPI to grow by 3.7% per year, and CPI-U by 2.4% per year.
  • High Case. Based on projections from 2016 CMS Medicaid Actuarial Report.  From 2019 onward, this report projects M-CPI to grow by 4.2% per year, and CPI-U by 2.6% per year.

 

In short, the lower the cap growth rate, the more severe the Medicaid cuts will be.

 

The charts below demonstrate that for any projection of the bill’s cap growth rates, BCRA will lead to significant funding shortfalls for older adults, adults with disabilities, and non-disabled low-income children and adults. The end result is that states and beneficiaries will be left with severe funding shortages, and states will be forced to cut eligibility, provider rates, or covered services—or very likely all three.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Susan Reinhard is a senior vice president at AARP, directing its Public Policy Institute, the focal point for AARP’s public policy research and analysis. She also serves as the chief strategist for the Center to Champion Nursing in America, a resource center to ensure the nation has the nurses it needs.

 

 

 

 

Jean Accius is vice president of livable communities and long-term services and supports for the AARP Public Policy Institute. He works on Medicaid and long-term care issues.

 

 

 

 

Lynda Flowers is a Senior Strategic Policy Adviser with the AARP Public Policy Institute, specializing in Medicaid issues, health disparities and public health.

 

 

 

Ari Houser is a Senior Methods Adviser at AARP Public Policy Institute. His work focuses on demographics, disability, family caregiving, and long-term services and supports (LTSS).

 

 

 



Source link

The Senate Health Reform Bill Slashes Medicaid Severely

The Senate Health Reform Bill Slashes Medicaid Severely


The Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) now under consideration in the Senate would drastically alter the Medicaid program. The proposed Senate bill would change the way the federal government currently funds Medicaid by limiting federal funding and shifting cost over time to both states and Medicaid enrollees. BCRA would subject older adults, adults with disabilities, and children to mandatory per enrollee caps beginning in 2020. State Medicaid programs would have the option to choose between block grants and per enrollee caps for non-elderly non-disabled non-expansion adults.

The Senate bill would start out using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index (M-CPI)—a measure of the average out-of-pocket cost of medical care services used by an average consumer—as the growth rate for per enrollee caps.  However, beginning in 2025, it would slash the growth rate to the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U)—a measure of general inflation that examines out-of-pocket household spending on goods and services used for everyday living. CPI-U does not tie closely to medical costs and will not reflect population growth or the impact of aging. To be clear, none of the proposed growth factors—M-CPI, M-CPI+1, and CPI-U— keep pace with the growth in Medicaid spending.

Although studies have examined the impact of Medicaid spending cuts in the House-passed healthcare bill over a 10 year period (e.g. [CBO] [CMS] [Urban Institute]) we know of none that examine the impacts over a longer time horizon. To fill this gap, the AARP Public Policy Institute has developed a model that looks out an additional decade to capture impacts on Medicaid spending between 2027 and 2036.

By dramatically reducing the per capita cap growth factor beginning in 2025, we project that the Senate bill would cut between $2.0 and $3.8 trillion from total (federal and state) Medicaid spending over the 20-year period between 2017 and 2036 for the four non-expansion Medicaid enrollment groups: older adults, adults with disabilities, children, and non-expansion adults (children with disabilities are excluded because BCRA does not subject them to capped funding). A cut of this magnitude threatens the viability of the program in unprecedented ways and will increase the number of people who no longer have access to essential healthcare services and critical supports.  The projections do not include the proposed cuts to the adult expansion population, which would also be considerable.

Previous analysis by the AARP Public Policy Institute discusses why capping Medicaid is flawed and would leave states and the poorest and sickest Americans holding the bag for the shortfalls that will most certainly occur.

Table 1 shows the cumulative 20-year cuts to Medicaid by eligibility group under the Senate health reform bill for three growth rate projections.  The bill would cap per enrollee cost growth using two measures of inflation (M-CPI and CPI-U), which are highly variable and uncertain, though well short of what is needed to maintain the integrity of the Medicaid program.  It is difficult to plan for such uncertain growth rates, and reasonable projections are far apart.

We present the high, middle, and low case for M-CPI/CPI-U growth rates based on the following:

  • Low Case. Based on historical growth rates. Over the last five years (2012-2016), the M-CPI growth rate has averaged 3.0% per year, and the CPI-U growth rate has averaged 1.32% per year.
  • Middle Case. Based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. CBO projects M-CPI to grow by 3.7% per year, and CPI-U by 2.4% per year.
  • High Case. Based on projections from 2016 CMS Medicaid Actuarial Report.  From 2019 onward, this report projects M-CPI to grow by 4.2% per year, and CPI-U by 2.6% per year.

 

In short, the lower the cap growth rate, the more severe the Medicaid cuts will be.

 

 

The charts below demonstrate that for any projection of the bill’s cap growth rates, BCRA will lead to significant funding shortfalls for older adults, adults with disabilities, and non-disabled low-income children and adults. The end result is that states and beneficiaries will be left with severe funding shortages, and states will be forced to cut eligibility, provider rates, or covered services—or very likely all three.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Susan Reinhard is a senior vice president at AARP, directing its Public Policy Institute, the focal point for AARP’s public policy research and analysis. She also serves as the chief strategist for the Center to Champion Nursing in America, a resource center to ensure the nation has the nurses it needs.

 

 

 

 

Jean Accius is vice president of livable communities and long-term services and supports for the AARP Public Policy Institute. He works on Medicaid and long-term care issues.

 

 

 

 

Lynda Flowers is a Senior Strategic Policy Adviser with the AARP Public Policy Institute, specializing in Medicaid issues, health disparities and public health.

 

 

 

 

Ari Houser is a Senior Methods Adviser at AARP Public Policy Institute. His work focuses on demographics, disability, family caregiving, and long-term services and supports (LTSS).

 

 

 

 



Source link

CMS Report Confirms Medicaid Cuts Would Jeopardize Critical Services and Long-Term Program Stability

CMS Report Confirms Medicaid Cuts Would Jeopardize Critical Services and Long-Term Program Stability


The proposed American Health Care Act (AHCA) would make significant changes to the Medicaid program, which serves as a critical safety net for millions of people who deplete their life savings and turn to Medicaid for assistance as their ability to care for themselves declines. The bill would repeal the Medicaid expansion and implement a capped financing model for states. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the AHCA would cut $834 billion from the Medicaid program through fiscal year (FY) 2026. CBO projects that 23 million people would lose coverage as a result of the AHCA, most of them — 14 million — because of the changes to Medicaid.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the Medicaid program, has released a new report suggesting, based on different assumptions, that 8 million people would lose Medicaid under the AHCA through FY2026. While the numbers differ between the CMS and the CBO, one thing is clear: The AHCA would cut Medicaid financing to states and millions of people would lose coverage for critical services. In its report, CMS also makes clear the danger of the bill for Medicaid enrollees, particularly for older adults and people with disabilities that rely on Medicaid for home- and community-based services.

Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services in Jeopardy

Zeroing in on the CMS report, an initial read suggests minor implications of capped financing for Medicaid. According to CMS, “There is no estimated impact on Medicaid enrollment because of the presence of the per capita allotments.” Reading between the lines, however, tells a much different story.

To reach this conclusion, CMS assumes that states will “(i) lower provider reimbursement rates; (ii) manage utilization and program efficiency; and (iii) reduce optional services.” When CMS refers to “optional services” it means services that are not required by the federal government and offered at the discretion of states. Home- and community-based services (HCBS) are generally classified as optional, and states have the flexibility to offer this support or to take it away. Notably, while “optional,” HCBS is often a more cost-effective option than nursing home care — not to mention what people tend to prefer.

According to analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, most (88 percent) Medicaid spending on optional services went toward older adults and people with disabilities, and of this spending, more than half went toward home- and community-based services.

If, as CMS suggests, states are going to reduce optional services to make up for gaps caused by capped Medicaid financing, HCBS will almost certainly become a target. This is a potential unintended consequence of the bill — that is, states limiting access to Medicaid HCBS to stay within the caps and thereby likely increasing the use of more expensive services like nursing home care, which is required by law.

While HCBS are more in line with consumer choice and has the potential to limit cost growth, they are optional in Medicaid and thus in jeopardy if the bill becomes law. The new CMS report makes this clear, and suggests additional, long-term danger for Medicaid under the AHCA.

Long-Term Implications of the AHCA for Medicaid

In addition to the impacts of the per capita caps on HCBS, the CMS report makes clear that the proposed per capita caps in the AHCA may have long-term impacts that threaten how states run their programs.

The report states, Over a longer time period, it may be more difficult for States to operate their Medicaid programs without making more significant changes to their programs,” although no further explanation is available.

Additional research, however, has given insight toward the long-term impacts of capped Medicaid financing. A recent AARP report, for example, shows that the growing and aging of the 65-plus population will have significant cost implications for Medicaid that the AHCA does not take into account.

If a per capita cap structure is implemented in Medicaid, the impact will be felt for years beyond 2026. The limited growth rates allowed by the caps would lead to shortfalls in how much money states have to serve older adults, people with disabilities and low-income children and adults. As a result, states will be forced to cut services, restrict eligibility, cut provider rates — or a combination of any number of those.

Looking Forward

Whether it’s research from CMS or CBO, it is clear that changes proposed to the Medicaid program under the AHCA pose significant near- and long-term risks to states and to consumers. Reducing access to home- and community-based services — and Medicaid in general — will harm older adults and people with disabilities. Going forward, discussion around health reform should focus not on where to cut Medicaid, but rather on how existing funds could be used more efficiently to meet people’s needs.

 

Brendan Flinn is a policy research senior analyst for the AARP Public Policy Institute. He works on Medicaid, long-term services and supports, and family caregiving issues.



Source link

The American Health Care Act Makes Unsustainable Cuts to Medicaid

The American Health Care Act Makes Unsustainable Cuts to Medicaid


Recent policy conversations related to the American Health Care Act (AHCA) have focused on  proposals that would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s critical protection for people with preexisting conditions. This  controversial proposal has drawn  a lot of attention for good reason. Eliminating this important protection, which keeps insurance companies in the individual (non-group) market from considering health status when making coverage decisions, could hurt millions—especially older adults who tend to develop more health conditions as they age.

But the preexisting condition protection is not the only serious concern. The proposed legislation would also make huge cuts to Medicaid by taking  $880 billion out of the program by 2026. How?  By, among other things, fundamentally changing the way the program is funded. Under the AHCA, Medicaid funding would move from a federal guarantee to match all legitimate state expenditures on health care and long-term services and supports (LTSS) for eligible beneficiaries, to a capped payment system that would give states a fixed dollar amount per enrolled beneficiary.[i]  Although per enrollee caps respond to changes in enrollment, they do not respond to increases in health care costs attributable to medical or pharmaceutical innovation, nor do they respond to other changes in the health care environment that could affect per enrollee spending. Health care costs, we all know, are notorious for their rapid rise. The result: an ever-widening gap between cost and funding.

The impact of such a huge loss of federal Medicaid funds on people with disabilities and poor seniors will be devastating—especially for 11 million Medicare beneficiaries who are also eligible for Medicaid. These individuals—called dual eligibles, or duals—are the poorest and sickest of all Medicare beneficiaries and rely on Medicaid for critical LTSS services, like help with toileting, bathing, and eating.

Faced with major losses of federal funding for their Medicaid programs,  states would have limited options. They could plug the funding hole with state revenues, which is unlikely given competing demands on state budgets. States could also cut provider rates, which could lead to significant access problems for beneficiaires because many providers may choose not to serve the Medicaid population. States could also eliminate optional eligibility categories, including some that provide access to LTSS. Finally, states could reduce or eliminate access to optional services, including home and community-based LTSS. Limiting access to needed LTSS for dual eligibles will most surely result in increased use of emergency room and hospital services, ultimately shifting costs to the Medicare program—creating a “pay me now or pay me later” situation for the federal government.

Rather than take billions  of dollars out of Medicaid and shift significant costs to Medicare and states, it is time to have a reasoned conversation about how to improve the program in ways that don’t leave gaping holes in the health care safety net that millions of people  and their family caregivers rely on.

[i] States have the option of receiving block grant funding for children and non-elderly, non-disabled adults. Block grants are fixed amounts of money that do not respond to changes in enrollment or program costs.

 

 

Lynda Flowers is a Senior Strategic Policy Adviser with the AARP Public Policy Institute, specializing in Medicaid issues, health disparities and public health.

 

 

 

 



Source link

The American Health Care Act Makes Unsustainable Cuts to Medicaid

The American Health Care Act Makes Unsustainable Cuts to Medicaid


Recent policy conversations related to the American Health Care Act (AHCA) have focused on  proposals that would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s critical protection for people with preexisting conditions. This  controversial proposal has drawn  a lot of attention for good reason. Eliminating this important protection, which keeps insurance companies in the individual (non-group) market from considering health status when making coverage decisions, could hurt millions—especially older adults who tend to develop more health conditions as they age.

But the preexisting condition protection is not the only serious concern. The proposed legislation would also make huge cuts to Medicaid by taking almost $1 trillion (or 25 percent of all Medicaid dollars in 2016) out of the program by 2026. How?  By fundamentally changing the way the program is funded. Under the AHCA, Medicaid funding would move from a federal guarantee to match all legitimate state expenditures on health care and long-term services and supports (LTSS) for eligible beneficiaries, to a capped payment system that would give states a fixed dollar amount per enrolled beneficiary [i]. Although per enrollee caps respond to changes in enrollment, they do not respond to increases in health care costs attributable to medical or pharmaceutical innovation, nor do they respond to other changes in the health care environment that could affect per enrollee spending. Health care costs, we all know, are notorious for their rapid rise. The result: an ever-widening gap between cost and funding.

The impact of such a huge loss of federal Medicaid funds on people with disabilities and poor seniors will be devastating—especially for 11 million Medicare beneficiaries who are also eligible for Medicaid. These individuals—called dual eligibles, or duals—are the poorest and sickest of all Medicare beneficiaries and rely on Medicaid for critical LTSS services, like help with toileting, bathing, and eating.

Faced with major losses of federal funding for their Medicaid programs,  states would have limited options. They could plug the funding hole with state revenues, which is unlikely given competing demands on state budgets. States could also cut provider rates, which could lead to significant access problems for beneficiaires because many providers may choose not to serve the Medicaid population. States could also eliminate optional eligibility categories, including some that provide access to LTSS. Finally, states could reduce or eliminate access to optional services, including home and community-based LTSS. Limiting access to needed LTSS for dual eligibles will most surely result in increased use of emergency room and hospital services, ultimately shifting costs to the Medicare program—creating a “pay me now or pay me later” situation for the federal government.

Rather than take millions  of dollars out of Medicaid and shift significant costs to Medicare, it is time to have a reasoned conversation about how to improve the program in ways that don’t leave gaping holes in the health care safety net that millions of people  and their family caregivers rely on.

 

[i] States have the option of receiving block grant funding for children and non-elderly, non-disabled adults. Block grants are fixed amounts of money that do not respond to changes in enrollment or program costs.

 

 

Lynda Flowers is a Senior Strategic Policy Adviser with the AARP Public Policy Institute, specializing in Medicaid issues, health disparities and public health.

 

 



Source link

Pin It on Pinterest