A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request from state attorneys general to stop the Trump administration from scrapping the cost-sharing reduction subsidies that are paid to insurance companies to help lower costs for low-income Americans.U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, an Obama administration appointee in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, said the Trump administration had a stronger legal argument than the 19 state attorneys general regarding whether Congress appropriated federal funds for the CSRs, though “it’s a close and complicated question.”
The bipartisan Senate bill to stabilize the individual insurance market and fund cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers would reduce the federal budget deficit by $3.8 billion from 2018 to 2027, the Congressional Budget Office reported Wednesday.
The bill, authored by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate health committee, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), senior Democrat on the committee, would fund the payments for 2018 and 2019.
President Donald Trump recently cut off funding for the payments, which insurance and other healthcare industry groups say are key to maintaining the viability of the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance marketplaces.
In just a matter of days, on Nov. 1, millions of people will enroll in Obamacare’s marketplace for health insurance, but after months of back-and-forth over the law, consumers are still confused about when, where, how — and if — they can get coverage.
While most of the country gets health coverage through their employer or through government programs, over 10 million people need to purchase plans through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, law that Republicans have vowed to repeal.
What has not changed are the minds and hearts of congressional Republicans. When they unexpectedly held onto both chambers of Congress and won the White House last year, they had no new serious policy ideas. They keep repeating that relentless partisan battle cry from 2011: repeal and replace.
President Trump signed an executive order for health care reform Thursday allowing some people to pay less for insurance, but others will pay more. Now people can buy health insurance across state lines. The president says there’s no cost to the government. Critics say it will destabilize insurance markets and the elderly and very sick patients will pay more.
Several state officials, including ones in California, say they will sue. They say it’s not legal for the president to side-step state regulations.
How will the health care changes impact people in California? Not good says a UCLA professor.
Months after he shelved a plan to deliver single-payer health care in California, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said Wednesday that questions persist about how such a system would work in the state.
“I definitely see a path forward toward universal health care,” Rendon, D-Lakewood, said in an interview at the Riverside Convention Center, where he gave remarks at the annual economic forecast delivered by the UC Riverside business school’s Center for Economic Forecasting & Development.
“In terms of specifics to single-payer, the questions that were looming in early summer are the same questions that the authors haven’t addressed,” Rendon said. “The funding mechanism has not been addressed. How to get a federal waiver hasn’t been addressed. The service delivery mechanism hasn’t been addressed.”
State Senate leader Kevin de León’s opening salvo in the U.S. Senate race against Sen. Dianne Feinstein takes on one of the main frustrations progressives have voiced with her, a refusal to support single-payer health care.
“I believe that every family, it doesn’t make a difference who you are or where you come from, deserves to have quality healthcare. It is a universal right,” De León says in a video released by his campaign Wednesday. “It’s not the exclusive privilege of the elite and the wealthy.”
The recent Health Affairs Blog piece by Chernew and Barbey (October 17, 2017) provides a helpful theoretical summary of the various ways ACOs might achieve savings—even if modest or still latent. But their analysis of the empirical literature, including the CMS innovations, gives us little confidence that even these small savings are real or will emerge. It is astonishing there is little or no critique of ACO studies’ limitations that generally bias the findings toward the apparent (but miniscule) savings.
As her husband lay moaning in pain from the cancer riddling his body, Patricia Martin searched frantically through his medical bag, looking for a syringe.
She had already called the hospice twice, demanding liquid methadone to ease the agony of Dr. Robert Martin, 66. A family practice physician known to everyone as “Dr. Bob,” he had served this small, remote community for more than 30 years.
But the doctor in charge at Mat-Su Regional Home Health & Hospice wasn’t responding. Staff said he was on vacation, then that he was asleep.
San Francisco-based Dignity Health this week signed an agreement to combine its subsidiary U.S. HealthWorks with Concentra, a medical and urgent care provider.
The deal, expected to close in the first quarter of next year, combines the systems’ urgent care services. Large health systems have been investing more in their urgent care and medical center locations as more patients seek care beyond hospitals.