This week, in their “Future of the Affordable Care Act” series on our Employment Matters blog, my colleagues Alden Bianchi and Edward Lenz provided an analysis of the major provisions of the American Health Care Act (“AHCA”).

Introduced on March 6, 2017, the AHCA is the first concrete legislative proposal detailing the initial provisions designed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  As Alden and Ed discuss, the bill currently is the subject of widespread media scrutiny and intense criticism.  The bill is not final and will likely face numerous changes, including the last minute proposals changes of the past 48 hours.  The March 6th version offers an outline of Republican priorities in the regulation of health and health care financing, which include a strong bias in favor of market-based solutions and aversion to most (but not all) government intervention in the health care markets.

Check out their full analysis on The Future of the Affordable Care Act Week 7: The American Health Care Act, here. Continue Reading Future of the Affordable Care Act and the American Health Care Act

In a February 24th blog post, we described Medicaid block grants and per capita caps in terms of A x B = C to demonstrate how those payment policies work.  ‘A’ is the amount a state is paid per beneficiary, ‘B’ is the number of beneficiaries in a given state, and ‘C’ is the total state payment from the federal government.  We have since been asked by numerous providers to describe the nuts and bolts of how a per capita cap, the current Medicaid financing structure in the proposed American Health Care Act, would work.  For the Medicaid provider, the nuts and bolts of how they are paid would change very little while the amount they are paid might change a lot.  Continue Reading Provider Payments Under a Medicaid Per Capita Cap

Here we are in March 2017 and no one is sure where things stand with the 340B Drug Discount Program.   HRSA and its oversight of the 340B program are subject to the recent Executive Orders restricting issuance of federal regulations and the promised repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has the potential to impact 340B operations.  In fact, the only thing that appears certain for the 340B program is that nothing is certain.  So let’s review several recent 340B developments, and potential developments to come.

Omnibus Guidance

In June 2016, I predicted in this blog that the final version of the long-promised HRSA 340B Omnibus Guidance, which would have provided clarity on 340B program standards, would never actually be issued or implemented.  And in fact, at the end of January 2017, HRSA withdrew the final 340B Omnibus Guidance while it is was still pending at OMB.  Even if it had issued, the Guidance would have been subject to the terms of the regulatory freeze President Trump imposed by Executive Order immediately after his inauguration on January 20, 2017. Continue Reading The Uncertain Future of the 340B Drug Discount Program

On March 6, House Republicans revealed The American Health Care Act. It is their plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The bill changes the structure of Medicaid financing from the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) system, in which states and the federal government each pay a percentage of Medicaid funding, to a per capita system.

Under current law, states get paid by the federal government for their Medicaid programs based on the amount of services they provide.  As we stated in a previous post, that has created an incentive for states to use supplemental payment streams to maximize per service revenue.  Under a per capita cap, states will be paid based on population.  They get paid for every person on their Medicaid rolls regardless of the amount of services the individuals use.  Therefore, states will now have an incentive to maximize their rolls.

This creates what we will call “The Walking Dead problem.” Continue Reading The Walking Dead in Medicaid

money_388130419Currently, state Medicaid programs have flexibility in developing payment policies, including utilizing supplemental payments and non-federal supplemental payment mechanisms. Supplemental payments pay providers above what they receive for an individual service through Medicaid provider rates.  Supplemental payments include disproportionate share hospital (DSH) and upper payment limit (UPL) payments and are a critical funding source for many safety net providers. States can fund the non-federal share of these payments through intergovernmental transfers, provider taxes, and certified public expenditures.

However, there is limited transparency and data available on supplemental payments. As a result, states can use these funding structures to increase their total federal Medicaid match. The total percentage of federal funding for each state’s Medicaid program is often referred to as the effective Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). However, due to data limitations on supplemental payments, we do not know what any state’s effective FMAP actually is.

The American Health Care Act is the House Republican bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Its details became available March 6th. This bill changes the structure of Medicaid supplemental payments, with the exception of DSH payments. States’ reaction to the bill will tell us more about Medicaid supplemental payments than we’ve ever known, and whether the financing system in the proposed bill will provide equivalent federal funding. Continue Reading Medicaid Supplemental Payments under The American Health Care Act

Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) required coverage of individuals with incomes from 0% of the federal poverty level (FPL) through 133% of the FPL.  The requirement to cover this group was overturned in NFIB v. Sebelius.  As a result, it is now up to states to determine whether they will offer Medicaid coverage to these individuals.  This new category of eligible Medicaid beneficiaries is often referred to as childless adults.

A number of Republicans, both governors and those in Congress, have taken to using the term “able-bodied” to refer to this group.  If you are able-boded, the theory goes, the Medicaid program should reasonably expect you to work. As a result, some Medicaid expansion and Medicaid reform proposals have included work requirements as an eligibility criteria for Medicaid. We can expect this topic to continue to be raised as we get deeper into ACA reform. Continue Reading Who Are the Medicaid Able-Bodied?

6350-Pharma-Summit-blog-buttonThe pharmacy industry continues to be under scrutiny from all angles.  As legislative, agency, and enforcement priorities take shape under the new administration, the industry is faced with what seems like daily developments in terms of policy updates, legislation, and potential regulation.  Our 2017 Pharmacy Industry Summit will bring together stakeholders and thought leaders from across the industry to discuss legal and policy challenges facing manufacturers, PBMs, payors, pharmacies, and providers and to assess the various swirling initiatives and their potential impact on the industry.

The Summit will be held on April 5-6 at the Mintz Levin Washington, DC office.  Event details can be found here.

Session topics will include:

  • A Keynote Address from Mark Merritt, President and CEO of The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA)
  • An update on the current state of Affordable Care Act Reform
  • Drug Pricing Debate and the Evolving Role of Pharmacy Industry Players
  • State Issues Affecting the Pharmaceutical Industry
  • Congressional Staffer Panel
  • Value-Based and Innovative Contracting and Reimbursement
  • FDA’s Impact on the Supply Chain – Evolving Policies and Changing Priorities
  • Government Enforcement and the Pharmaceutical Industry

We hope you can join us! Please register by March 29, 2017.

The Massachusetts health care industry is facing policy changes from state and federal decision makers. In a recent Alert, my ML Strategies colleagues Julie Cox, Steven Baddour, Dan Connelly, Caitlin Beresin and Max Fathy consider how state and federal government action will affect a wide variety of health care stakeholders.

In addition to certain health care aspects of Governor Baker’s proposed FY2018 budget, the Massachusetts legislature is expected to debate a number of health care issues during the 2017-2018 legislative session. And while Massachusetts is a national leader in health care, federal health care law and policy will always impact the Commonwealth, so ML Strategies is watching how the new presidential administration and Congress move forward with their plans to reshape the nation’s health care policy.

Two key Massachusetts budget items relating to health care are controversial amongst industry:

  1. A $2,000 per employee “fair share” assessment for certain Massachusetts employers that fail to meet certain enrollment or contribution thresholds for their employee health insurance plans.
  2. Permanent tiered caps on the rate of growth for all acute hospitals and most professional service providers.

My colleagues also highlight several bills that Massachusetts legislators have introduced relating to drug pricing transparency, recognizing that pharmaceutical spending is a key driver of total health care expenses. We can also expect recommendations from both the Health Policy Commission and the legislature’s Special Commission on Provider Price Variation this spring.

Read the full Alert, and stay tuned as ML Strategies continues to monitor health care in the Commonwealth.

ML Strategies has published its Washington Outlook for 2017, with a collection of materials covering what to expect from the 115th Congress, spanning multiple issues and industries.

For Health Care stakeholders, ML Strategies considers priorities that have been identified by the Trump Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, and forecasts possible legislative and administrative actions to move their agendas along. We all know that the ACA is a target, and whether the chosen path forward is repeal and replace, or repair and rebuild, there are some key components of the law that are vital to a healthy marketplace.  ML Strategies outlines some strategies and tactics we might see in the coming weeks.

In addition to ACA repeal, the Health Care Outlook also discusses key Administration appointees for HHS, CMS and FDA, as well as potential policy advisors. There are also a number of Congressional acts up for reauthorization – the “UFAs” for FDA, CHIP and Medicare outpatient therapy caps – each important in its own right, but which also creates opportunities for ‘ride-along’ policy initiatives.

Finally, ML Strategies looks to what may happen to the ACA cost-sharing reductions with the House v. Burwell litigation, and considers whether Telemedicine might provide an opportunity for this new Congress to work together, across party lines.

Access the ML Strategies 2017 Outlook: Health Care here.

Access the comprehensive ML Strategies Washington Outlook for 2017 here.

 

More than two years since issuing the proposed rule, the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued the long-awaited and highly anticipated final rule (the Final Rule) that provides amendments to the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) regulatory safe harbors and adds protections for certain payment practices and business arrangements under the beneficiary inducement provisions of the Civil Monetary Penalty Law (CMP). These amendments and updates to the AKS and CMP regulations attempt to clarify the OIG’s enforcement position in light of changes due to health reforms, to streamline the OIG’s advisory opinion workload, and to implement long-existing mandates enacted in statutes. This post discusses the amendments to the beneficiary inducement provisions of the CMP codified in 42 C.F.R. Part 1003 (CMP Regulations). Continue Reading At Long Last, OIG Issues Final Rule for Beneficiary Inducement Safe Harbors