Public Policy

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

As President Donald J. Trump starts firing officials of his administration – even if it appears that they would only have a few months left in the job – some health officials may find their positions on the line.

Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.

Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.

Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.

Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.

It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.

Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.

In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
 

Fauci on the firing line?

Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.

The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.

But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.

To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.

He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.

In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.

Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.

Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.

In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As President Donald J. Trump starts firing officials of his administration – even if it appears that they would only have a few months left in the job – some health officials may find their positions on the line.

Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.

Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.

Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.

Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.

It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.

Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.

In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
 

Fauci on the firing line?

Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.

The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.

But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.

To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.

He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.

In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.

Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.

Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.

In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As President Donald J. Trump starts firing officials of his administration – even if it appears that they would only have a few months left in the job – some health officials may find their positions on the line.

Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.

Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.

Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.

Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.

It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.

Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.

In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
 

Fauci on the firing line?

Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.

The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.

But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.

To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.

He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.

In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.

Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.

Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.

In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From the beginning, SHM has consciously and consistently taken a unique approach to its advocacy efforts with the federal government. The advocacy priorities of SHM most often concern issues that we feel have an impact on our patients and the broader delivery system, as opposed to a focus on issues that have direct financial benefit to our members.

This strategy has served SHM well. It has earned respect among policymakers and we have seen significant success for a young and relatively small medical society. The issues where we spend the bulk of our time and effort include advocating for issues like alternative payment models (APMs), which reward care quality as opposed to volume, as well as issues related to data integrity that APMs require. We have advocated strongly for changes to dysfunctional observation status rules, for workforce adequacy and sustainability, and for recognition of the importance of hospital medicine’s contribution to the redesign of our nations delivery system. And SHM will continue to advocate for many other issues identified as being important to hospital medicine and our patients.

This year, for the first time in the two decades that I have served on the SHM Public Policy Committee, Medicare has proposed changes that would create unprecedented financial hardship for hospital medicine groups. Each year, as a part of its advocacy agenda, SHM reviews and comments on proposed changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). Among other things, the PFS adjusts payment rates to physicians for specific services. Changes under the PFS are required to be budget neutral. In effect, budget neutrality means that whenever certain services receive an increased payment rate, CMS is required to offset these changes by making cuts to other services. This year, in an effort to correct the long-standing underfunding of primary care services, CMS has increased payment for many Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes associated with outpatient primary care services. However, due to budget neutrality requirements, many inpatient E&M care services will be receiving significant cuts.

The goal of increasing payment rates for primary care services is laudable, as many of these cognitive services have been long underfunded. However, the proposed payment increases will only apply to outpatient E&M codes and not their corresponding inpatient codes. While our outpatient Internal Medicine and Family Practice colleagues will benefit from these changes, inpatient providers, including hospitalists, stand to lose a significant amount revenue. SHM and the hospitalists we represent estimate that the proposed budget neutrality adjustment will lead to an approximate 8 percent decrease in Medicare Fee for Services (FFS) revenue. Hospitalists are among the specialties that will be most impacted from these proposed changes. If put into effect, these proposals will leave hospital medicine behind.

These changes have been proposed at a time when hospitalists, along with their colleagues in critical care and emergency medicine, have been caring for patients on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic at great risk to themselves at their families. While hospitalists are working tirelessly to provide lifesaving care to COVID-positive patients throughout the country, hospitalist groups have struggled financially as a result of the pandemic. Inpatient volumes, and therefore care reimbursement, has dropped significantly. Many hospitalists have already reported pay reductions of 20% or more. Others have seen their shifts reduced, resulting in understaffing, which may compromise the quality of care. For many groups, a Medicare reimbursement cut of this magnitude add fuel to an already strained revenue stream and will not be financially sustainable.

SHM is, of course, fighting back. We are not asking CMS to completely abandon the increases in reimbursement for primary care outpatient codes, and we support properly valuing outpatient care services. However, we are asking CMS to find a solution that does not come at the expense of hospital medicine and the other specialties that care for acutely ill hospitalized patients, including patients with COVID-19. If a better solution requires holding off on the proposal for another year, CMS should do so. Furthermore, SHM is asking Congress to abandon the statutory requirement for budget neutrality in these extraordinary times as CMS and Congress work to find towards a solution that properly values both inpatient and outpatient care services.

To send a message to your representatives urging them to stop these payment cuts, please visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center at www.votervoice.net/SHM/campaigns/77226/respond. You can read our full comments on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule at www.hospitalmedicine.org/policy--advocacy/letters/2021-physician-fee-schedule-proposed-rule/.

From the beginning, SHM has consciously and consistently taken a unique approach to its advocacy efforts with the federal government. The advocacy priorities of SHM most often concern issues that we feel have an impact on our patients and the broader delivery system, as opposed to a focus on issues that have direct financial benefit to our members.

This strategy has served SHM well. It has earned respect among policymakers and we have seen significant success for a young and relatively small medical society. The issues where we spend the bulk of our time and effort include advocating for issues like alternative payment models (APMs), which reward care quality as opposed to volume, as well as issues related to data integrity that APMs require. We have advocated strongly for changes to dysfunctional observation status rules, for workforce adequacy and sustainability, and for recognition of the importance of hospital medicine’s contribution to the redesign of our nations delivery system. And SHM will continue to advocate for many other issues identified as being important to hospital medicine and our patients.

This year, for the first time in the two decades that I have served on the SHM Public Policy Committee, Medicare has proposed changes that would create unprecedented financial hardship for hospital medicine groups. Each year, as a part of its advocacy agenda, SHM reviews and comments on proposed changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). Among other things, the PFS adjusts payment rates to physicians for specific services. Changes under the PFS are required to be budget neutral. In effect, budget neutrality means that whenever certain services receive an increased payment rate, CMS is required to offset these changes by making cuts to other services. This year, in an effort to correct the long-standing underfunding of primary care services, CMS has increased payment for many Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes associated with outpatient primary care services. However, due to budget neutrality requirements, many inpatient E&M care services will be receiving significant cuts.

The goal of increasing payment rates for primary care services is laudable, as many of these cognitive services have been long underfunded. However, the proposed payment increases will only apply to outpatient E&M codes and not their corresponding inpatient codes. While our outpatient Internal Medicine and Family Practice colleagues will benefit from these changes, inpatient providers, including hospitalists, stand to lose a significant amount revenue. SHM and the hospitalists we represent estimate that the proposed budget neutrality adjustment will lead to an approximate 8 percent decrease in Medicare Fee for Services (FFS) revenue. Hospitalists are among the specialties that will be most impacted from these proposed changes. If put into effect, these proposals will leave hospital medicine behind.

These changes have been proposed at a time when hospitalists, along with their colleagues in critical care and emergency medicine, have been caring for patients on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic at great risk to themselves at their families. While hospitalists are working tirelessly to provide lifesaving care to COVID-positive patients throughout the country, hospitalist groups have struggled financially as a result of the pandemic. Inpatient volumes, and therefore care reimbursement, has dropped significantly. Many hospitalists have already reported pay reductions of 20% or more. Others have seen their shifts reduced, resulting in understaffing, which may compromise the quality of care. For many groups, a Medicare reimbursement cut of this magnitude add fuel to an already strained revenue stream and will not be financially sustainable.

SHM is, of course, fighting back. We are not asking CMS to completely abandon the increases in reimbursement for primary care outpatient codes, and we support properly valuing outpatient care services. However, we are asking CMS to find a solution that does not come at the expense of hospital medicine and the other specialties that care for acutely ill hospitalized patients, including patients with COVID-19. If a better solution requires holding off on the proposal for another year, CMS should do so. Furthermore, SHM is asking Congress to abandon the statutory requirement for budget neutrality in these extraordinary times as CMS and Congress work to find towards a solution that properly values both inpatient and outpatient care services.

To send a message to your representatives urging them to stop these payment cuts, please visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center at www.votervoice.net/SHM/campaigns/77226/respond. You can read our full comments on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule at www.hospitalmedicine.org/policy--advocacy/letters/2021-physician-fee-schedule-proposed-rule/.

From the beginning, SHM has consciously and consistently taken a unique approach to its advocacy efforts with the federal government. The advocacy priorities of SHM most often concern issues that we feel have an impact on our patients and the broader delivery system, as opposed to a focus on issues that have direct financial benefit to our members.

This strategy has served SHM well. It has earned respect among policymakers and we have seen significant success for a young and relatively small medical society. The issues where we spend the bulk of our time and effort include advocating for issues like alternative payment models (APMs), which reward care quality as opposed to volume, as well as issues related to data integrity that APMs require. We have advocated strongly for changes to dysfunctional observation status rules, for workforce adequacy and sustainability, and for recognition of the importance of hospital medicine’s contribution to the redesign of our nations delivery system. And SHM will continue to advocate for many other issues identified as being important to hospital medicine and our patients.

This year, for the first time in the two decades that I have served on the SHM Public Policy Committee, Medicare has proposed changes that would create unprecedented financial hardship for hospital medicine groups. Each year, as a part of its advocacy agenda, SHM reviews and comments on proposed changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). Among other things, the PFS adjusts payment rates to physicians for specific services. Changes under the PFS are required to be budget neutral. In effect, budget neutrality means that whenever certain services receive an increased payment rate, CMS is required to offset these changes by making cuts to other services. This year, in an effort to correct the long-standing underfunding of primary care services, CMS has increased payment for many Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes associated with outpatient primary care services. However, due to budget neutrality requirements, many inpatient E&M care services will be receiving significant cuts.

The goal of increasing payment rates for primary care services is laudable, as many of these cognitive services have been long underfunded. However, the proposed payment increases will only apply to outpatient E&M codes and not their corresponding inpatient codes. While our outpatient Internal Medicine and Family Practice colleagues will benefit from these changes, inpatient providers, including hospitalists, stand to lose a significant amount revenue. SHM and the hospitalists we represent estimate that the proposed budget neutrality adjustment will lead to an approximate 8 percent decrease in Medicare Fee for Services (FFS) revenue. Hospitalists are among the specialties that will be most impacted from these proposed changes. If put into effect, these proposals will leave hospital medicine behind.

These changes have been proposed at a time when hospitalists, along with their colleagues in critical care and emergency medicine, have been caring for patients on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic at great risk to themselves at their families. While hospitalists are working tirelessly to provide lifesaving care to COVID-positive patients throughout the country, hospitalist groups have struggled financially as a result of the pandemic. Inpatient volumes, and therefore care reimbursement, has dropped significantly. Many hospitalists have already reported pay reductions of 20% or more. Others have seen their shifts reduced, resulting in understaffing, which may compromise the quality of care. For many groups, a Medicare reimbursement cut of this magnitude add fuel to an already strained revenue stream and will not be financially sustainable.

SHM is, of course, fighting back. We are not asking CMS to completely abandon the increases in reimbursement for primary care outpatient codes, and we support properly valuing outpatient care services. However, we are asking CMS to find a solution that does not come at the expense of hospital medicine and the other specialties that care for acutely ill hospitalized patients, including patients with COVID-19. If a better solution requires holding off on the proposal for another year, CMS should do so. Furthermore, SHM is asking Congress to abandon the statutory requirement for budget neutrality in these extraordinary times as CMS and Congress work to find towards a solution that properly values both inpatient and outpatient care services.

To send a message to your representatives urging them to stop these payment cuts, please visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center at www.votervoice.net/SHM/campaigns/77226/respond. You can read our full comments on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule at www.hospitalmedicine.org/policy--advocacy/letters/2021-physician-fee-schedule-proposed-rule/.

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Statistics tell the tale of immigrants in the American health care workforce in broad strokes. In an interview, though, one hospitalist shared the particulars of his professional and personal journey since arriving in the United States from India 15 years ago.

Mihir Patel, MD, MPH, FHM, came to the United States in 2005 to complete a Master’s in Public Health. Fifteen years later, he is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. The paperwork for the application, he said, was completed in 2012. Since then, he’s been renewing his H-1B visa every three years, and he has no expectation that anything will change soon.

“If you are from India, which has a significant backlog of green cards – up to 50 years…you just wait forever,” he said. “Many people even die waiting for their green card to arrive.”

Arriving on a student visa, Dr. Patel completed his MPH in 2008 and began an internal medicine residency that same year, holding a J-1 visa for the 3 years of his US residency program.

“Post-residency, I started working in a rural hospital in an underserved area of northeast Tennessee as a hospitalist,” thus completing the 3 years of service in a rural underserved area that’s a requirement for J-1 visa holders, said Dr. Patel. “I loved this rural community hospital so much that I ended up staying there for 6 years. During my work at this rural hospital, I was able to enjoy the autonomy of managing a small ICU, doing both critical care procedures and management of intubated critical patients while working as a hospitalist,” he said. Dr. Patel served as chief of staff at the hospital for two years, and also served on the board of directors for his 400-physician medical group.

“I was a proud member of this rural community – Rogersville,” said Dr. Patel. Although he and his wife, who was completing her hospitalist residency, lived in Johnson City, Tenn., “I did not mind driving 120 miles round trip every day to go to my small-town hospital for 6 years,” he said.

Spending this time in rural Tennessee allowed Dr. Patel to finish the requirements necessary for the Physician National Interest Waiver and submit his application for permanent residency. The waiver, though, doesn’t give him priority status in the waiting list for permanent residency status.

After a stint in northern California to be closer to extended family, the pull of “beautiful northeast Tennesse and the rural community” was too strong, so Dr. Patel and his family moved back to Johnson City in 2018.

Reauthorizing the H1-B visa program

SHM has been advocating to improve the H1-B visa system for years, Dr. Patel said, The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and the Society is advocating for its passage in the Senate.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386) simplifies the employment-based immigration system by removing per-country caps, converting the employment-based immigration system into a “first-come, first serve” system that does not discriminate on country of origin. The act will also help alleviate the decades-long green card and permanent residency application backlogs.

Dr. Patel emphasized the importance of action by Congress to reauthorize the physician visa waiver program and expediting physician permanent residency. “This is a crisis and we are all physicians who are ready to serve, regardless of our country of origin. Please let us help this great nation by giving us freedom from visa restrictions and providing security for our families.

“During wartime, all frontline soldiers are naturalized and given citizenship by presidential mandate; this is more than war and we are not asking for citizenship – but at least give us a green card which we have already satisfied all requirements for. If not now, then when?” he asked.

Statistics tell the tale of immigrants in the American health care workforce in broad strokes. In an interview, though, one hospitalist shared the particulars of his professional and personal journey since arriving in the United States from India 15 years ago.

Mihir Patel, MD, MPH, FHM, came to the United States in 2005 to complete a Master’s in Public Health. Fifteen years later, he is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. The paperwork for the application, he said, was completed in 2012. Since then, he’s been renewing his H-1B visa every three years, and he has no expectation that anything will change soon.

“If you are from India, which has a significant backlog of green cards – up to 50 years…you just wait forever,” he said. “Many people even die waiting for their green card to arrive.”

Arriving on a student visa, Dr. Patel completed his MPH in 2008 and began an internal medicine residency that same year, holding a J-1 visa for the 3 years of his US residency program.

“Post-residency, I started working in a rural hospital in an underserved area of northeast Tennessee as a hospitalist,” thus completing the 3 years of service in a rural underserved area that’s a requirement for J-1 visa holders, said Dr. Patel. “I loved this rural community hospital so much that I ended up staying there for 6 years. During my work at this rural hospital, I was able to enjoy the autonomy of managing a small ICU, doing both critical care procedures and management of intubated critical patients while working as a hospitalist,” he said. Dr. Patel served as chief of staff at the hospital for two years, and also served on the board of directors for his 400-physician medical group.

“I was a proud member of this rural community – Rogersville,” said Dr. Patel. Although he and his wife, who was completing her hospitalist residency, lived in Johnson City, Tenn., “I did not mind driving 120 miles round trip every day to go to my small-town hospital for 6 years,” he said.

Spending this time in rural Tennessee allowed Dr. Patel to finish the requirements necessary for the Physician National Interest Waiver and submit his application for permanent residency. The waiver, though, doesn’t give him priority status in the waiting list for permanent residency status.

After a stint in northern California to be closer to extended family, the pull of “beautiful northeast Tennesse and the rural community” was too strong, so Dr. Patel and his family moved back to Johnson City in 2018.

Reauthorizing the H1-B visa program

SHM has been advocating to improve the H1-B visa system for years, Dr. Patel said, The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and the Society is advocating for its passage in the Senate.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386) simplifies the employment-based immigration system by removing per-country caps, converting the employment-based immigration system into a “first-come, first serve” system that does not discriminate on country of origin. The act will also help alleviate the decades-long green card and permanent residency application backlogs.

Dr. Patel emphasized the importance of action by Congress to reauthorize the physician visa waiver program and expediting physician permanent residency. “This is a crisis and we are all physicians who are ready to serve, regardless of our country of origin. Please let us help this great nation by giving us freedom from visa restrictions and providing security for our families.

“During wartime, all frontline soldiers are naturalized and given citizenship by presidential mandate; this is more than war and we are not asking for citizenship – but at least give us a green card which we have already satisfied all requirements for. If not now, then when?” he asked.

Statistics tell the tale of immigrants in the American health care workforce in broad strokes. In an interview, though, one hospitalist shared the particulars of his professional and personal journey since arriving in the United States from India 15 years ago.

Mihir Patel, MD, MPH, FHM, came to the United States in 2005 to complete a Master’s in Public Health. Fifteen years later, he is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. The paperwork for the application, he said, was completed in 2012. Since then, he’s been renewing his H-1B visa every three years, and he has no expectation that anything will change soon.

“If you are from India, which has a significant backlog of green cards – up to 50 years…you just wait forever,” he said. “Many people even die waiting for their green card to arrive.”

Arriving on a student visa, Dr. Patel completed his MPH in 2008 and began an internal medicine residency that same year, holding a J-1 visa for the 3 years of his US residency program.

“Post-residency, I started working in a rural hospital in an underserved area of northeast Tennessee as a hospitalist,” thus completing the 3 years of service in a rural underserved area that’s a requirement for J-1 visa holders, said Dr. Patel. “I loved this rural community hospital so much that I ended up staying there for 6 years. During my work at this rural hospital, I was able to enjoy the autonomy of managing a small ICU, doing both critical care procedures and management of intubated critical patients while working as a hospitalist,” he said. Dr. Patel served as chief of staff at the hospital for two years, and also served on the board of directors for his 400-physician medical group.

“I was a proud member of this rural community – Rogersville,” said Dr. Patel. Although he and his wife, who was completing her hospitalist residency, lived in Johnson City, Tenn., “I did not mind driving 120 miles round trip every day to go to my small-town hospital for 6 years,” he said.

Spending this time in rural Tennessee allowed Dr. Patel to finish the requirements necessary for the Physician National Interest Waiver and submit his application for permanent residency. The waiver, though, doesn’t give him priority status in the waiting list for permanent residency status.

After a stint in northern California to be closer to extended family, the pull of “beautiful northeast Tennesse and the rural community” was too strong, so Dr. Patel and his family moved back to Johnson City in 2018.

Reauthorizing the H1-B visa program

SHM has been advocating to improve the H1-B visa system for years, Dr. Patel said, The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and the Society is advocating for its passage in the Senate.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386) simplifies the employment-based immigration system by removing per-country caps, converting the employment-based immigration system into a “first-come, first serve” system that does not discriminate on country of origin. The act will also help alleviate the decades-long green card and permanent residency application backlogs.

Dr. Patel emphasized the importance of action by Congress to reauthorize the physician visa waiver program and expediting physician permanent residency. “This is a crisis and we are all physicians who are ready to serve, regardless of our country of origin. Please let us help this great nation by giving us freedom from visa restrictions and providing security for our families.

“During wartime, all frontline soldiers are naturalized and given citizenship by presidential mandate; this is more than war and we are not asking for citizenship – but at least give us a green card which we have already satisfied all requirements for. If not now, then when?” he asked.