MHF Community Board
Notifications
Clear all

The Three Known Health Care Decisions To Be Made By The President Elected Today

4 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
577 Views
10x25mm
(@10x25mm)
Famed Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1427
Topic starter  

Ryan Levi of Tradoffs (be forewarned, an NPR spinoff) has posted about the three major health care issues which we now know will be decided by the U.S. President elected today:

https://tradeoffs.org/2024/10/24/health-policy-decisions-next-president/

3 Health Care Decisions Awaiting the Next President
By Ryan Levi - October 24, 2024

The next U.S. president will have to make consequential choices about the Affordable Care Act, prescription drug prices and abortion. We compare the positions of candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on these major health policy issues.

Scroll down to listen to the full episode, read the transcript and get more information.

Tradeoffs is a nonprofit news organization that reports on health care’s toughest choices. Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get Tradeoffs’ latest stories in your inbox each Thursday morning.

As the 2024 election heads into its final weeks, the direction of American health policy affecting the lives of millions of Americans is at stake.

The next president and Congress will have the power to put their mark on major health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid that combined cover nearly 150 million Americans. They’ll be able to direct resources for how the United States fights the drug overdose crisis and how the country prepares for the next pandemic.

With the exception of abortion, health care concerns have largely taken a back seat to the economy and immigration in the 2024 presidential cycle. Vice President Kamala Harris has dropped her support for Medicare for All, which dominated the Democratic primary in 2020. Former President Donald Trump has backed away from his 2016 pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

A recent survey, however, found that two-thirds of Americans say health care should be receiving more attention in the presidential campaign, and there are several crucial health policy choices the next president is likely to face in their first year:

Should Congress extend the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced subsidies?

As part of the ACA, the federal government covers a portion of the monthly health insurance premiums that many people pay. Under the original law, lawmakers capped that assistance to individuals who made up to 400% of the federal poverty level – today that’s about $125,000 for a family of four.

Democrats in Congress removed the income cap in 2021 and increased the size of the subsidies. Consumers’ portion of their premiums have been nearly cut in half, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF. Since the subsidy increase, the number of people signing up for ACA coverage has nearly doubled to more than 21 million people.

The so-called enhanced subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2025. If that happens, KFF estimates monthly premiums for people with subsidized ACA plans would double in many states, and the Congressional Budget Office expects 7 or 8 million people would drop their Obamacare health coverage. (The CBO estimates about half of those people would instead get coverage through work.)

Vice President Harris says she wants to make these subsidies permanent, costing Washington an estimated $335 billion over the next decade. Former President Trump has not stated a position, but many Republicans, including former Trump officials, argue the benefit should expire.

Many Republicans point to a report issued this year by the conservative Paragon Health Institute that found as many as 5 million people misstated their incomes, potentially attempting to defraud the government and qualify for $0-premium health plans. According to Paragon, this activity cost taxpayers up to $26 billion.

Other health policy experts say there’s a less nefarious explanation. Cynthia Cox, a vice president with KFF said it can be very difficult, especially for people in many low-wage jobs, to forecast their annual earnings. What may look shady on paper may in reality be a best guess gone wrong.

“It might depend on how many tips you get, or how many rides you pick up, or how many shifts you work,” Cox said. “So that’s where I think there’s some important nuance to consider, like, is this really fraud or not?”

There are provisions in the law, Cox added, to force people to pay back all or part of their subsidy if their estimate was incorrect.

Michael Cannon, the director of health policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, blames the subsidies for fostering another form of fraud – perpetrated by insurance brokers. Federal health officials have received 275,000 complaints this year about brokers signing people up for Obamacare coverage without their consent. Brokers receive a commission for every person they enroll in coverage, and consumers who don’t have to pay a monthly premium may be less likely to notice a change in their insurance.

“If more enrollees had to pay at least a little something in order to enroll in these plans, that would check a lot of this unscrupulous behavior by brokers,” Cannon said.

Federal officials have suspended 850 brokers, proposed new rules to crack down on unscrupulous broker behavior and have resolved nearly all complaints.

What’s the future of Medicare’s drug price negotiations?

The Biden-Harris Administration scored a historic win by giving Medicare the power to directly negotiate the prices of some of the most expensive prescription drugs. Federal health officials say when the first 10 negotiated prices take effect in 2026, patients and Medicare will save $7.5 billion all together.

Some high-ranking Republicans want to repeal that authority, arguing that reducing drugmaker profits will shrink their incentive to develop the next blockbuster treatment. Several pharmaceutical companies have also sued the federal government, claiming that Medicare negotiating powers are unconstitutional.

Trump has not said if he supports the price negotiation law or would move to repeal the measure. Stacie Dusetzina, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, views Medicare’s new authority as still vulnerable to repeal.

“Once you give Medicare beneficiaries improved benefits, it’s really hard to take those away,” Dusetzina acknowledged. “But I think that because the negotiated prices won’t go into effect until 2026, no one will miss them [if they are repealed].”

Harris has said on the campaign trail she wants Medicare to “accelerate the speed of negotiations so the prices of more drugs come down faster.” Experts believe that would likely mean either negotiating the price of more drugs, or beginning to bargain earlier in a drug’s lifetime. Either move would require congressional sign-off.

Harris’ campaign says she would invest any additional savings in new policy proposals, like expanding Medicare coverage for home health care. But a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that additional funds from such an effort would be minimal.

Dusetzina said it’s also unclear whether Harris’ plan would slow the pipeline for new drugs.

“I think it’s worth being a little bit cautious about how big and broad you go immediately,” she said. “I want to see, what does that mean for drug development? What does that mean for access for patients?”

Trump has not explained how his administration would run the negotiations if they remain in place. Health care experts note a Trump administration would have limited ability to undermine the law, because the rules direct Medicare which medications to pick for negotiation, and sets minimum discounts the government must seek.

Will medication abortion remain available?

Nearly two-thirds of abortions in the U.S. are now so-called medication abortions, typically involving a regimen of two pills – mifepristone and misoprostol. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an attempt by anti-abortion advocates to strike down the Food and Drug Administration’s long-standing approval of and expanded access to mifepristone. But, depending on the election, new leaders at the FDA could move to restrict (or further expand) access to medication abortion.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, the FDA has allowed doctors to prescribe mifepristone to any patient via telehealth instead of requiring patients to see a provider in-person. Telehealth prescriptions now enable one in five abortions in the U.S., and Harris has made protecting and expanding abortion access a centerpiece of her campaign.

Trump has flip-flopped. On some occasions the former president has said he would not restrict access, and on others that he would be open to federal restrictions. Project 2025, the conservative governing blueprint authored by former Trump officials and other close advisers, calls for the FDA to withdraw its approval of mifepristone.

“I think a lot of people don’t know that we can trust what he’s saying because it’s consistently different,” said Ederlina Co, an associate professor of law at the University of the Pacific.

If a Trump administration did restrict or cut off access to mifepristone, people could still have medication abortions using just the other pill, misoprostol. Misoprostol used alone is safe but slightly less effective than the two-pill combination.

Lots of uncertainty around Trump’s health policy

Harris’ position on these three issues are clear. She supports expanding ACA enhanced subsidies. She backs medication abortion and would like to hit the gas on Medicare drug negotiations.

It’s “a little bit harder to predict” how a Trump administration would tackle these issues, said Ben Ippolito, a health economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

For example, until recently Trump’s clearest position on prescription drug prices was the “most favored nation” policy he proposed late in his first term. It would have forced drugmakers to sell certain drugs to Medicare at rates paid by other countries. Within the last few weeks, Trump’s campaign has removed any reference to that policy from his website.



   
ReplyQuote
Abigail Nobel
(@mhf)
Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1203
 

Now that the decision is made, the Associated Press narrowed the three issues a bit.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/washington-watch/112755

What Trump Has Proposed for Healthcare in a Second Administration

— A look at Trump's history and ideas floated on the campaign trail

Donald Trump has promised sweeping action in a second administration.

The former president and now president-elect often skipped over details but through more than a year of policy pronouncements and written statements outlined a wide-ranging agenda.

Here's a look at what Trump has proposed when it comes to abortion and healthcare:

Abortion

Trump played down abortion as a second-term priority, even as he took credit for the Supreme Court ending a woman's federal right to terminate a pregnancy and returning abortion regulation to state governments. At Trump's insistence, the GOP platform, for the first time in decades, did not call for a national ban on abortion. Trump maintains that overturning Roe v. Wade is enough on the federal level.

Still, Trump has not said explicitly that he would veto national abortion restrictions if they reached his desk. And in an example of how the conservative movement might proceed with or without Trump, anti-abortion activists note that the GOP platform still asserts that a fetus should have due process protections under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. That constitutional argument is a roadmap for conservatives to seek a national abortion ban through federal courts.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

Trump insists he would protect Social Security and Medicare, popular programs geared toward older Americans and among the biggest pieces of the federal spending pie each year. There are questions about how his proposal not to tax tip and overtime wages might affect Social Security and Medicare. If such plans eventually involved only income taxes, the entitlement programs would not be affected. But exempting those wages from payroll taxes would reduce the funding stream for Social Security and Medicare outlays. Trump has talked little about Medicaid but his first administration, in general, defaulted to approving state requests for waivers of various federal rules and it broadly endorsed state-level work requirements for recipients.

Affordable Care Act and Healthcare

As he has since 2015, Trump calls for repealing the Affordable Care Act and its subsidized health insurance marketplaces. But he still has not proposed a replacement: In a September debate, he insisted he had the "concepts of a plan." In the latter stages of the campaign, Trump played up his alliance with former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime critic of vaccines and of pesticides used in U.S. agriculture. Trump repeatedly told rally crowds that he would put Kennedy in charge of "making America healthy again."

Tariffs and Trade

Trump's posture on international trade is to distrust world markets as harmful to American interests. He promises to reinstitute an August 2020 executive order requiring that the FDA buy "essential" medications only from U.S. companies. He pledges to block purchases of "any vital infrastructure" in the U.S. by Chinese buyers.



   
ReplyQuote
Abigail Nobel
(@mhf)
Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1203
 

Those who love freedom tend to be skeptical about progressive claims of "threats to democracy." Now that democracy has survived another election cycle, perhaps it's time to unveil the real concern, published in MedPage Today.

Watch how sparks fly when the bureaucratic health structure feels threatened, and note the author credit at the end.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/112732

RFK Jr. Threatens the Very Fabric of Healthcare

— A vote to give Kennedy power is a vote against public health

With the November 5 election upon us, health policy is once again at the forefront of political discourse. Recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been making headlines after presidential candidate Donald Trump indicated that if he were elected, Kennedy could "go wild on health" with a health policy role in the White House. Kennedy made alarming comments about overhauling critical health agencies, and over the weekend he said that fluoride is an "industrial waste" and should be removed from public drinking water. All of this has sparked renewed discussion about the future of our healthcare system.

As an emergency department physician, I have witnessed firsthand the profound impact that health policies can have on patient care. The question of who has a hand in health policy in the White House is deeply personal to me and crucial for every voter to consider.

In my daily practice, I encounter patients whose lives are affected by decisions made far beyond the walls of the emergency department. For instance, I recently treated a young mother who arrived in crisis, her child suffering from an asthma attack exacerbated by a lack of access to preventive medications due to insurance issues. Her story is not unique; it reflects a systemic failure traced back to the policies that govern healthcare access and affordability. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, one in four Americans report skipping necessary medical care due to costs. This number jumps to six in 10 among the uninsured. The current landscape is fraught with challenges, and the ramifications of misguided health policy can be catastrophic.

While the Trump campaign walked back the initial report that Kennedy would control agencies such as HHS, CDC, FDA, and NIH, he would reportedly be given a role in women's health and nutrition, and would go after federal data on vaccines, reportedly to prove they are "not safe." This introduces a major risk: granting Kennedy, who has a long history as an anti-vaccine activist, access to information with a stated goal of disproving vaccine safety. For public health, which relies on the transparency and integrity of data, this could be disastrous, further eroding the public's fragile trust in vaccines and threatening the progress we've made in infectious disease control.

Vaccination rates are already declining, with CDC reporting significant drops in adult and childhood coverage during the pandemic. Vaccines are one of the greatest public health successes in history, and further undermining their importance would put countless lives at risk. With Kennedy given a platform to spew more anti-vaccine rhetoric, the implications could be disastrous.

But vaccines aren't the only health intervention that would hang in the balance if he were put in a position of power. Kennedy's statements against antidepressants -- claiming they are linked to the increase in school shootings -- would have profound consequences. A National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that about 13% of Americans ages 18 and older used antidepressants, indicating a widespread reliance on these medications for mental health treatment.

Moreover, Kennedy's unfounded claims that Wi-Fi exposure can lead to cancer demonstrate a troubling disregard for evidence-based medicine, as multiple studies and federal guidance on the matter suggest no causal link between Wi-Fi exposure and cancer. Such rhetoric on Wi-Fi and antidepressants not only spreads misinformation, but also deters individuals from seeking appropriate care.

At a time when confidence in our healthcare system is already low -- largely due to misinformation amplified during the pandemic -- having Kennedy in a position of power would further erode public trust. According to a 2022 Gallup poll, only 38% of Americans expressed confidence in the healthcare system, the lowest level recorded since the survey began in 2001. The consequences of Kennedy's leadership could extend far beyond policy changes; they could influence the very fabric of our healthcare system.

We are already witnessing a troubling rise in healthcare violence against providers. The American College of Emergency Physicians found that 91% of emergency physicians said that they, or a colleague, were a victim of violence in the past year. This trend correlates with the spread of misinformation. When patients distrust the healthcare system, they may lash out against those who are trying to help. At a time when assaults against physicians are on the rise and trust is already low, do we need to fan the flames?

As voters and healthcare professionals, we must critically assess health policy discussions rather than passively accept rhetoric. The stakes are high, and our choices at the ballot will directly influence the future of U.S. healthcare. It is imperative that we engage in conversations grounded in evidence, focusing on improving patient outcomes and ensuring equitable access to care. We need to challenge leaders who promote policies that threaten our collective health and safety.

Let us prioritize healthcare as a key issue as we head to the polls. We must advocate for leaders who value science and evidence-based practices over fear-mongering and misinformation. We have the power to shape a system that prioritizes patient care over political agendas. It's time for us to demand informed choices and hold our leaders accountable for the policies they propose. The health of our nation hangs in the balance. Together, we can create a future where health policy is rooted in truth, understanding, and respect for the science that guides our profession.

Owais Durrani, DO, is an emergency medicine physician in Houston, with a background in political science. Before earning his medical degree, he worked in the Obama administration.



   
ReplyQuote
Abigail Nobel
(@mhf)
Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1203
 

Related reports, courtesy Heritage Foundation.



   
ReplyQuote
Q

Get MHF Insights

News and tips for your healthcare freedom.

We never spam you. One-step unsubscribe.

 

Name(Required)
Zip Code(Required)
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Sponsors

Friends of MHF

MHF Community Forum thumbnail

Kirsten DeVries

Tom & Karen Nunheimer

Steve Ahonen

Ron & Faith Bosserman

Marlin & Kathy Klumpp

Sign Up for MHF Insights to keep up on the latest in Michigan Health Policy

Name(Required)
Zip Code(Required)
This field is hidden when viewing the form

5 great non profit logos 2021 - 2025
Michigan Healthcare Freedom Candid

Click here to join the MHF Community Forum!

Grow the community on our social media pages.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial