Archives

How the ‘red ripple’ could impact health policy in 2023 and beyond (The Hill)

Posted on by

THE HILL | Rather than a red wave, the 2022 congressional midterms brought a ‘red ripple’. 

With races still being decided and votes counted, Democrats have won control of the Senate, despite a runoff in Georgia. It looks like Republicans will take back the House — albeit with a much smaller majority than they had hoped. 

What does this all mean for health policy? With a divided Congress, President Biden’s ability to pass major, sweeping legislation along party lines (like the Inflation Reduction Act) falls to the wayside. But it doesn’t mean legislating comes to a standstill. Contrary to popular opinion, Congress has passed major health-related legislation with bipartisan support in recent years. This includes:

  • The No Surprises Act, which passed as part of 2020 appropriations legislation, established new federal protections against surprise medical bills;
  • Major opioid legislation of 2018, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act;
  • The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, which modernized the development and delivery of drugs and medical devices and advanced research into serious illness;
  • And the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), which repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula and changed the way that Medicare rewards clinicians for value over volume.

Read the full article here: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3734558-how-the-red-ripple-could-impact-health-policy-in-2023-and-beyond/

Changed Hearts And Minds – A Personal (Ongoing) Journey To Better Understanding LGBTQ+ Equity Issues (Forbes)

Posted on by

FORBES | Last week, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opined that we should revisit several major Supreme Court decisions, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage. This startled me. But it also moved me to reflect on my own past. And some of these recollections are painful to look back upon.

Two decades ago I supported the official Republican platform and President George W. Bush’s public call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I can firmly say I was wrong then, and it would be a major step backwards for this country to even consider relitigating that issue in the future. Indeed, we have seen major, positive cultural and attitudinal shifts on LGBTQ+ issues for the country — and a parallel personal journey of awareness, enlightenment, and growth for me.

As Americans, we can all agree there’s been sizable cultural change in our nation over the last 20 years. Looking back on my time as a member of the United States Senate at the turn of the century, and later as its Majority Leader from 2003–2006, many of the issues we voted on and beliefs we held then – including my own – are totally out of step with today’s more enlightened understanding and prevailing viewpoints. And while many feel today’s culture wars may be reaching a boiling point, we should recognize that amidst current partisan infighting, we have also made huge, generational progress, always recognizing that much more must be done.

Read the full story here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrist/2022/07/01/changed-hearts-and-minds–a-personal-ongoing-journey-to-better-understanding-lgbtq-equity-issues/?sh=402462b55737

How to Build a Better Health-Care System

Posted on by

(Washington Post, April 17, 2013)

By Tom Daschle, Bill Frist, Pete Domenici, and Alice Rivlin

Tom Daschle, a Democrat and former senator from South Dakota, was Senate majority leader from 2001 to 2003. Bill Frist, a Republican and former senator from Tennessee, was Senate majority leader from 2003 to 2007. Pete Domenici, a Republican and former senator from New Mexico, was chairman or ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee from 1981 to 2003. Alice Rivlin is a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. The four co-chair the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Health Care Cost Containment Initiative.

The four of us came together to change the conversation around how to improve health care and constrain cost growth. What we learned is that, until better care is prioritized over more care, our nation will continue to face a problem with health-care costs. The good news is that, through thoughtful policy, health-care practitioners can be encouraged through rewards to focus far more on what is best for their patients and less on the number of tests and procedures they can order. The even better news is that such a health-care vision can not only produce better care but also cost less.

With the Bipartisan Policy Center, we will release a report Thursday with more than 50 recommendations to achieve the critical goal of improving the quality and affordability of care for all Americans while containing high and rising health-care spending. This report is the culmination of nearly a year of work, including stakeholder outreach, thorough research and substantive analytics to quantify the impact of our proposed policies.

Too often we in Washington talk about health care as though it is little more than a line item on a budget table. Those of us who have experienced the best of health care know that is not how care should be delivered or policy crafted in this most personal of issues. Our country can achieve a higher-value health-care system — meaning both higher quality and greater efficiency.

Health-care cost drivers are complex and interwoven, but the most problematic ones we identified are the inefficiencies, misaligned incentives and fragmented care delivery in the current fee-for-service reimbursement system. To address these, we seek to promote coordinated and accountable systems of health-care delivery and payment, building on what has proved successful in the private and public sectors. Organized systems of care emphasize the value of care delivered over the volume of care. These systems are often better able to meet patients’ needs and desires and are able to effectively reimburse providers and practitioners for delivering high-quality care.

In all our proposals, we sought to avoid simple cost-shifting as a means to generate federal budgetary savings, instead promoting transparency and protecting patient choice. We also focused on reforms that will incite transformation across the health-care system, not limited to Medicare. We believe, however, that the power of Medicare can be leveraged to lead the way in transforming U.S. health care.

In brief, our recommendations:

●Preserve the promise of traditional Medicare while adding more choices and protections for beneficiaries, including accountable systems of care and a stronger, more competitive Medicare Advantage program.

●Strengthen and modernize the traditional Medicare benefit, including adding a catastrophic cap, rationalizing cost-sharing and premiums and expanding access to assistance programs for those with low incomes.

●Reform the tax treatment of health insurance to limit the taxfavored treatment of overly expensive insurance products.

●Empower patients by promoting transparency that is meaningful to consumers, families and businesses, and streamline quality reporting.

●Advance the nation’s understanding of potential cost savings from prevention programs, through support for research and innovation on effective strategies to address costly chronic conditions.

●Offer incentives to states to promote policies that will support a more organized, value-driven health-care delivery and payment system, such as supporting medical liability reform and strengthening their primary-care workforce.

All of these policies are designed to improve the quality and value of our nation’s health care. That is where every health-reform effort should start. The savings that we achieved — $560 billion over 10 years in debt and deficit reduction — is the outgrowth of our work, not the goal.

No single set of recommendations can fix the health-care system or the nation’s debt and deficit crisis overnight, but we hope this report can start a constructive, pragmatic dialogue among policymakers and political leaders. By presenting this report to federal, state and private-sector leaders, we hope to promote a collaborative dialogue and a shared understanding of strategies to put our nation’s health system, as well as its economic outlook, on a sounder, healthier and more sustainable path.

This article was originally published in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-build-a-better-health-care-system/2013/04/17/a44dd478-a6d1-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html

How the Supreme Court’s ‘ObamaCare’ ruling will affect you

Posted on by

(The Week, March 13, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

The nation’s highest court is about to judge the president’s signature legislative achievement — and it’s not just politicians who are invested in the outcome.

Is the new health care law constitutional? You might think it doesn’t matter — or at least, that it doesn’t matter to you. But the fact is, the Supreme Court’s decision on President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) will almost certainly affect you directly.

How, exactly? For one thing, the court’s decision could play a key role in determining our next president and possibly your next congressman. If you are poor, the ruling may decide whether or not you have coverage. If you are not poor, it will impact how much you pay for health care. If you own a small business, it might determine if you must purchase health insurance for your employees. And if you work for a large business, it may determine whether you still receive your insurance from your employer. If you’re a doctor, it will likely affect your reimbursement. If you’re a patient, it will determine your benefits.

On March 26, 27, and 28, the Supreme Court will hear extensive oral arguments on the constitutionality of the ACA. This is the culmination of 26 states filing suits in federal district courts and opinions from seven federal appellate courts. A final written opinion likely will be delivered in June, 18 months before the individual mandate kicks in and just five months before the presidential election.

If the individual mandate is ultimately deemed constitutional, then for the first time in our history, you will have to purchase a product to live in America.

The ACA is a highly charged law that, according to the latestRealClearPoliticsaverage, is viewed unfavorably by half of Americans. The law essentially does two massive, controversial things: (1) Mandates that individuals purchase health insurance coverage, and (2) expands Medicaid by 16 million enrollees. This expansion means almost one in four Americans will be on Medicaid, the government program originally intended for our poorest citizens. If you don’t purchase insurance, you will pay a fine of $695 per adult and $347 per child.

Together, these provisions will reduce the uninsured by 32 million, but will still leave an estimated 23 million individuals uninsured in 2020.

The focus of the Supreme Court opinion will be on the constitutionality of these two issues, though two additional items will also be considered. One is whether the entire law falls if a part of it, such as the mandate, is ruled unconstitutional, and the other is whether the court has jurisdiction to rule at all now, since the law has yet to go fully into effect.

There is already plenty of discussion on the legal merits of the case, particularly as it regards the taxing power and the Commerce Clause. But what are the very real implications of the upcoming ruling? Here is what to look for:

1. If the court upholds the individual mandate, it will take effect 18 months later — unless Congress acts to repeal or postpone it (which won’t happen as long as Obama is in the White House). If the individual mandate is ultimately deemed constitutional, then for the first time in our history, you will have to purchase a product to live in America.

2. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the court will then decide whether to let the rest of the law stand, including the expansion of Medicaid and the largely popular individual insurance reforms. If the rest is left intact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that 16 million of the 32 million Americans expected to gain insurance under the law would be ineligible for the new coverage and that non-group, individual premiums might increase 15 to 20 percent. It would then be up to each state to decide whether or not to adopt the individual mandate.

3. If the court decides that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional, it will take effect in 2014 — unless Congress acts to postpone, repeal, or not fund it. But if the expansion is left intact, with almost a quarter of all Americans covered by Medicaid, the program would grow to include a portion of the middle class.

4. If Medicaid expansion is overruled, coverage will remain at current, varying state levels, and an estimated 16 million low-income individuals will not be able to take advantage of the new Medicaid coverage that would have begun in 2014.

5. Politically, if the new law is judged constitutional, Democrats will celebrate the judicial affirmation of the spirit and substance of the historic reform, illustrating President Obama’s leadership. Republicans would fan the existing flames of unpopularity among the majority of Americans, citing federal government overreach, rallying around an election call for repeal as they did in 2010. If any part is unconstitutional, the bases of both parties will be emboldened to make health reform the defining issue, after the economy, in the elections in November.

This one is worth following. It will be a game-changer. And not just for the politicians and pundits in Washington. It’s a game-changer for you, too.

 

Dr. William H. Frist is a nationally acclaimed heart transplant surgeon, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, the chairman of Hope Through Healing Hands and Tennessee SCORE, professor of surgery, and author of six books. Learn more about his work at BillFrist.com.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/225477/how-the-supreme-courts-obamacare-ruling-will-affect-you