House Democrats Introduce the “American’s Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009”

July 15, 2009

House Democrats introduced their proposal for health care reform this afternoon (July 14, 2009), the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (the “House Bill”).  Introduced under the sponsorship of three key House committees — Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor — the 1018 page House Bill details the sweeping and comprehensive health care reforms touted by House Democrat Leaders..  A copy of the House Bill as introduced may be reviewed here

The House Bill proposes sweeping reforms built around the establishment of a public plan option while technically continuing to permit private plans to operate but in a federally regulated form allowing for little meaningful plan design control to private payers, health care providers or the individuals choosing among the plan options.   The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the coverage side of the bill will cost $1 trillion and cover 97 percent of the legal population within 10 years.

The following is a brief overview of certain key provisions of the House Bill drawn mostly from a series of high level summaries released by House Democrats along with the House Bill.  Long on politically comforting phrasing and short on details, you can read these summaries here.

Public Plan Option.  The House Bill proposes the establishment of a public health insurance option that would compete with allowable private plans, both of which would be subject to sweeping federal controls.  Democrat House co-sponsors represent the House Bill:

  • Provides a public health insurance option that would compete with private insurers within the Health Insurance Exchange.
  • The public health insurance option would be made available in the new Health Insurance Exchange (Exchange) along with private health insurance plans that comply with the design dictates established in the House Bill.
  • The public health insurance option and private plan options meet the same benefit requirements and comply with the same insurance market reforms
  • The public option’s premiums would be established for the local market areas designated by the Exchange.
  • Individuals with affordability credits could choose among the private carriers and the public option.
  • Require that the public health plan and private health plan options and private options each must be financially self-sustaining
  • Promote primary care, encourage coordinated care and shared accountability, and improve quality.
  • Institute new payment structures and incentives to promote these critical reforms.
  • Specify health care provider participation in the plans will be voluntary; Medicare providers are presumed to be participating unless they opt out.
  • Provides for provider reimbursements for services from the plans initially will be established using “rates similar to those used in Medicare with greater flexibility to vary payments.
  • Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has announced plans to proceed immediately on mark up on the House Bill with the intention to of scheduling a vote on the House Bill by the end of July. Assuming that House leaders adhere to this schedule, the planned timetable leaves little opportunity for critical evaluation and input by members of Congress or the public who may have questions or concerns about the proposed legislation. Prompt and coordinated action is required for individuals with concerns about any of the proposed reforms.

Federal Mandates Health Plan Benefits.  In order to achieve affordable, quality health care for all, the House Bill would impose federal standards regulating the benefits that the public health plan and private health plans would be required and permitted to offer.  Under these provisions, the House Bill would:

  • Establish a standardized benefit package that covers essential health services.
  • Vest the power in the Secretary of Health & Human Services to decide the coverage that would be included in this mandated standardize benefit package.
  • Eliminate cost-sharing for preventive care (including well baby and well child care)
  • Impose caps annual out-of-pocket spending for individuals and families.
  • Create a new independent Benefits Advisory to recommend to the Secretary and update the core package of benefits.
  • Provide for the public health plan option to offer four tiers of benefit packages from which consumers can choose to best meet their health care needs. Each allowable plan would be required to provide the dictated core benefits.
    • The Basic Plan would include the federally mandated core set of covered benefits and cost sharing protections;
    • The Enhanced Plan would include the federally mandated core set of covered benefits with more generous cost sharing protections than the Basic plan;
    • The Premium Plan would include the federally mandated core set of covered benefits with more generous cost sharing protections than the Enhanced plan; and
    • The Premium Plus Plan would include the federally mandated core set of covered benefits, the more generous cost sharing protections of the Premium plan, and additional covered benefits (e.g., oral health coverage for adults, gym membership, etc.) that will vary per plan. In this category, insurers must disclose the separate cost of the additional benefits so consumers know what they’re paying for and can choose among plans accordingly.

The House Bill empowers the Secretary of Health & Human Services to decide the federally dictated, required core set of benefits provides coverage with input from a newly created Benefits Advisory Commission.  These core benefits are intended to include inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital services, physician services, equipment and supplies incident to physician services, preventive services, maternity services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services, well baby and well child visits and oral health, vision, and hearing services for children and mental health and substance abuse services.  However, the particular, terms and scope of these benefits is left to HHS to define.

Health Insurance Exchange.  The House Bill also calls for the establishment of a “Health Insurance Exchange” meeting federal mandates through which low income individuals initially, and certain small businesses would be offered the option to purchase health care coverage through federally mandated purchasing groups.  In the first year, the House Bill provides for the Health Insurance Exchange to accept those without health insurance, those who are buying health insurance on their own, and small businesses with fewer than 10 people. In the second year, the Health Insurance Exchange could accept small businesses with fewer than 20 people. After that, “larger employers as permitted by the Commissioner.” In other words, expansion is discretionary, not mandated.

Affordability & Subsidies.  The House Bill provides sliding-scale affordability credits for individuals and families with incomes above the Medicaid thresholds but below 400% of poverty and imposes a cap on total out-of-pocket spending for individuals and families covered under the plans regardless of income.  In addition, the House Bill would broaden Medicaid coverage to include individuals and families with incomes below 133% of poverty.

Effective 2013, sliding scale affordability credits would be provided provided to individuals and families between 133% to 400% of poverty. That means the credits phase out completely for an individual with $43,320 in income and a family of four with $88,200 in income (2009).

The sliding scale credits limit individual family spending on premiums for the essential benefit package to no more than 1.5% of income for those with the lowest income and phasing up to no more than 11% of income for those at 400% of poverty.

The affordability credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding scale basis, phasing out at 400% of poverty, ensuring that covered benefits are accessible.

The Health Insurance Exchange would administer the affordability credits in relationship with other federal and state entities, such as local Social Security offices and Medicaid agencies.

The essential benefit package, and all other benefit options, limit exposure to catastrophic costs with a cap on total out of pocket spending for covered benefits. Special provisions would apply to Medicaid. 

Effective 2013, individuals with family income at or below 133% of poverty ($14,400 for an individual in 2009) are eligible for Medicaid. State Medicaid programs would continue to cover those individuals with incomes above 133% of poverty, using the eligibility rules states now have in place.

Paying The Tab.  House Democrats propose to finance approximately half of the estimated $1 trillion bill for their proposed reforms through projected $500 billion or so in savings from Medicare and Medicaid achieved by a variety of reimbursement and benefit cutbacks and other reforms. The rest of the financing would come from a combination of revenue expections from employer and individual mandates (an estimated $200 billion over 10 years) and a surtax on the richest 1.5 percent of Americans. The surtax is 1 percent on income between $350,000 and $500,000; 1.5 percent on income between $500,000 and $1,000,000; and 5.4 percent in income above $1,000,000. The House Bill permits the amount of this surtax to vary if the bill is less or more expensive than initially anticipated.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health industry clients and others about a diverse range of health care policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management and operational concerns.  You can get more information about her health industry experience here.  

If you need assistance evaluating or formulating comments on the proposed reforms contained in the House Bill or on other health industry matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Health Care Practice Group Chair, at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402 or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney. 

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you.  If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register to receive this Solutions Law Press Health Care Update in real time here, joining the LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, and/or subscribing to receive e-mail distributions of some of these updates by sharing your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials here.

For important information concerning this communication click here.  If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject  here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  All rights reserved.


“Health Care Government Relations and Legislative Update” Focus On July 14 North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professional Association Meeting

July 13, 2009

NORTH TEXAS HEALTHCARE COMPLIANCE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

July 14, 2009 Meeting Reminder

Congress and federal regulators are making health care regulation and reform their latest priority.  The NTHCPA invites interested health care compliance and ethics professionals to join us on July 14, 2009 for a lively discussion about “Health Care Government Relations and Legislative Update” lead by as Sandy Pappas, from Congressman Pete Session’s Office and Cynthia Marcotte Stamer from Curran Tomko Tarski LLP.

Date:  Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Time:  2:00 p.m.

Location:  Texas Health Resources, 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington, TX  76011

For additional information, please contact Cynthia Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or by e-mail at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About the NTHCPA

NTHCPA exists to champion ethical practice and compliance standards and to provide the necessary resources for ethics and compliance Professionals and others in North Texas who share these principles.

The vision of NTHCPA is to be a pre-eminent compliance and ethics group promoting lasting success and integrity of organizations within North Texas.

To register or update your registration to receive notice of other upcoming events, e-mail your contact information to lfigueroa@cttlegal.com.

This communication may be considered a marketing communication for certain purposes.  If you wish to update your e-mail for purposes of or would prefer not to receive future e-mail concerning meetings or other activities of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association or other marketing and promotional mailings from it, please send an email with the word “unsubscribe” in its subject heading to lfigueroa@cttlegal.com


Stamer To Discuss “Making Gainsharing Work: Managing Physician Performance” At June 17, 2009 Dallas Bar Association Health Law Section Meeting

May 26, 2009

Health care organizations, health plans and regulars increasingly point to gainsharing and pay-for-performance strategies as key to securing needed key physician buy-in and performances to achieve desired health care quality and cost objectives.  Using physician gainsharing to promote desired performances within the bounds of the law without undesirable side effects involves more than staying within the STARK exceptions and anti-kickback safe harbors. 

Curran, Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss key strategies and processes for designing and administering legally defensible pay-for-performance and other gainsharing arrangements that promote desired outcomes in operation at the Dallas Bar Association Health Law Section meeting on June 17, 2009. 

Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, attorney and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her legal work, publications and programs, and advocacy on health industry performance management and other health industry matters.  Ms. Stamer works extensively with health care organizations, managed care and health insurance organizations, governments and others to manage performance and legal risks.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer combines her more than 22 years of health industry regulatory and risk management experience with an in-depth knowledge of workforce management and regulation to help clients manage performance and legal and operational risks.  Her experience includes advising public and private health industry clients domestically and internationally on a wide range of matters.  A widely published author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer’s insights on health industry matters also are quoted in HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, the Wall Street Journal and many other national popular, business and industry publications.

 Ms. Stamer is scheduled to begin her remarks at Noon on June 17, 2009 at the offices of the Dallas Bar Association located at 2101 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75201.  For additional information, call the Dallas Bar Association at 214-220-7400 or see http://www.dallasbar.org.


Hearing On Texas Medical Board Reforms Scheduled April 14, 2009

April 7, 2009

The 11 member Texas House Committee on Public Health has scheduled a hearing Tuesday, April 14th to consider Texas Medical Board reforms proposed in HB 3816.  Advocates of the legislation are urging supporters to attend the hearing and/or communicate their support for the legislation now.

 

Supported by a broad range of physician and other health care organizations, HB 3816 and a companion bill pending in the Texas Senate, SB 2336, seek to regulate certain practices by the Board which many physicians and others perceive as overly heavy handed.  As currently proposed, HB 3816 would implement the following reforms effective September 1, 2009:

·         Require that the Executive Director of the Board be a physician licensed in good standing

·         Require that individuals filing complaints swear under oath to the truth of the statements in the complaint

·         Require that the Board have “good cause” to file a complaint on its own initiative

·         Require the Board to encourage each person with a complaint to attempt to resolve the complaint with the license holder directly before filing a formal complaint with the Board, in situations where that would be appropriate.  Preprinted complaint forms provided by the Board would be required to include a prominent statement encouraging persons with complaints to attempt to resolve their complaints directly with the physician, when appropriate, before filing a formal complaint with the Board.

·         Require that the Board notify physicians charged in a complaint be personal delivery or certified mail

·         Prohibit the Board from considering or acting on a complaint involving care provided more than 4 years after the date the complaint is filed

·         Deny civil, criminal, or regulatory immunity to persons filing complaints when the complaint is filed with malice or with an anticompetitive purpose.

·         Require that the Board provide the physician charged in the complaint with an unredacted copy of the complaint unless there is a risk of harm to the public or unless it would jeopardize a criminal investigation. 

·         Ensure that physicians subject to a complaint receive at least 30 days after receiving a copy of the complaint to prepare and submit a response

·         Establish a schedule for conducting each phase of a complaint that is under the control of the Board not later than the 30th day after the date the physician’s time for preparing and submitting a response expires.

·         Restrict the physicians qualified to serve on the expert physician panel for a complaint to physicians actively practicing medicine in the State of Texas

·         Require that the Board review a report concerning a physician’s medical competency prepared by an expert at the request of the physician who is the subject of the complaint

·         Require that any review by a second expert be independent of the first review, without knowledge by the second reviewer of the identity of the first reviewer, and without any communication between the two reviewers.

·         When the first and second reviewer disagree, require that the physician subject of the complaint be notified of the conflict and provided with copies of the conflicting reports and require that the final written report include a copy of the dissenting report.

·         Requires that before using a report under this section, the Board provide the identity and qualifications of each expert physician who reviewed the complaint to the physician subject to the complaint

·         Require considerations of the medical competency of the physician charged be conducted only by a physician engaged in an active practice in the same or similar specialty as the physician in the year preceding the review.

·         Requires that the identity of the members of the expert panel considering medical competency be promptly disclosed to the physician who is the subject of the complaint

·         Would require that a report concerning the medical competency of a charged physician be in the form of an affidavit sworn under oath to qualify for consideration by the Board

·         Would excuse a charged physician from the obligation to provide evidence concerning patient records in the absence of a court order where the patient objects to this disclosure of the records for reasons of patient privacy

·         Require “clear and convincing evidence” that, through the practice of medicine, the physician poses a continuing threat to the public welfare before the Board could deny or restrict a physician’s license or otherwise discipline a physician.

·         Prohibit the Board from ordering or requiring a physician to practice medicine in a particular manner, to practice medicine, or to direct anyone in the practice of medicine, except by ordering that a physician not engage in a practice that causes actual harm or an imminent risk of harm to a patient

·         Prohibit the Board from imposing a penalty, sanction, or other disciplinary action that is different from the action recommended by the panel in an informal proceeding and agreed upon by the license holder

·         Prohibit the Board from involving itself in fee disputes or taking disciplinary action against a license holder for using the “fee for service” method of billing

·         Prohibit the Board from taking disciplinary action against a license holder based upon the manner in which the license holder maintains the license holder’s office or records, unless the conduct has a likelihood of causing an actual harm or an imminent risk of harm to a patient

·         Requires that a physician receive notice at least 48 hours prior to a an Informal Settlement Conference proceeding of the identity of the panel members presiding over the Informal Settlement Conference proceedings; and the opportunity to have an  audio or video record or arrange for transcription of the Informal Settlement Conference proceedings

·         Provide that decisions of the administrative law judge be binding on the Board

·         Protect the right of a license holder may access and obtain a copy of any information relating to the license holder

·         Provide that the district court reviewing a Board disciplinary action may only sustain the discipline on a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the action was supported by facts and law.

·         Guarantee a jury trial right for physicians seeking to challenge the revocation of their license in the courts

·         Require greater proof that a drug or treatment is nontherapeutic and that the prescribed treatment be have a “likelihood of harm to a patient” to constitute grounds for discipline. 

You can review the current language of the bill at http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/doc/HB03816I.doc.  For a list of the current members of the Texas House Committee on Public Health, see http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/list81/410.htm.

If you need assistance evaluating or responding to these or other proposed legislative or regulative changes, responding to a licensing board complaint, peer review, or other disciplinary investigation or matter, or other health care matters, contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer or other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP. please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402 or see CTTLegal.com or CynthiaStamer.com.