America Out Loud PULSE: Alternatives to Traditional Health Insurance

From my America Out Loud Pulse podcast with Charles Frohman –https://www.americaoutloud.news/alternatives-to-traditional-health-insurance-with-charles-frohman/

Many thought the Affordable Care Act was the answer to access to medical care.  As it turns out, the insurance premiums are still prohibitive for many consumers. In 2023, the average ACA plan costs $469 per month for a 40-year-old individual, $937 for a couple age 40, $1,214 for a 40-year-old couple with one child, and $1,491 for a 40-year-old couple with two children.

 According to Kaiser Family Foundation data, about half of U.S. adults say they have difficulty affording health care costs. About 40 percent of U.S. adults with health insurance say they have delayed or gone without medical care in the last year due to cost. About one-third of adults with health insurance worry about affording their monthly health insurance premium, and 44 percent worry about affording their deductible before health insurance kicks in. Moreover, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that roughly 6 in 10 insured adults experience problems when they use their insurance.

Everyone is talking about health care price transparency. But what does that really mean? In short, we want receiving medical services to be more like going to the grocery store. You need a bottle of milk, you see several brands, you see the prices, you decide to buy the brand of your choice based on price and quality. Not so simple, you say. This is my health. I don’t know when I’ll get sick. Let’s face it: most of us do not have major medical problems for the most of our lives.

When it comes to more expensive care, like emergency rooms and hospitalizations, it is a small percentage of patients that make up the larger expenses. Repeat visitors to the Emergency Room make up almost one third of the visits. And one quarter of all Medicare funds are spent in an enrollee’s last year of life. What does this mean? Most of us have manageable medical care costs yet the standard insurance model does not take the facts into consideration – much to the consumer’s detriment.

When all these things are considered, it is clear that s different model for paying our medical care makes sense. We are going to talk about that tonight.

Non-insurance health care model: MPB Health

https://joinmympb.com/patientempowerment/

For links for the recording, or promotion at the Out Loud site:

*The Forbes-featured upgrade from insurance – combining Sharing (that doesn’t suffer from networks like insurance), HSAs (the most tax-advantaged retirement vehicle), and a Concierge to help our newly-empowered patients shop on drug, test and specialist prices.

*The money-doubling account for those wanting help with Out of Pocket, whether dental, electives, chiro, urgent care & therapies

* NHF’s campaigns, in particular the “certification” one to open the supply of health care, the “HSA” one to make customers out of patients; the “vaxx centralization” one to oppose the WHO, the “telecom” one to oppose the Wireless Mesh; and the “homeopathy/compounding” one to protect access to consumer-preferred natural treatments

Bio

Charles Frohman is a lobbyist for the National Health Federation to restore informed consent, healer freedom, and end special interest capture of the bureaucracies. After graduating in 1988 with a Government B.A. from the College of William and Mary, he worked at the Cato Institute, and lobbied for a variety of nonprofits focusing on medical freedom, including Health Ventures for Pain Medicine Rights, Consumer Health Reform, and Natural Health. Since 1990, Mr. Frohman has helped politicians, trade associations, think tanks, nonprofits, and corporations innovate and raise their profile. Mr. Frohman is also connecting an innovative health plan with families, entrepreneurs and associations seeking empowerment of patients and healers.

Mission Possible: Saving Freedom in Medical Care

by Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD

In the original Mission: Impossible series, against all odds, through brilliant strategizing the good guys thwart stealth communist plots to undermine democracies. In trying to provide affordable, quality, personalized medical care, independent physicians face seemingly insurmountable obstacles: digging out from under piles of electronic paperwork, breaking free of third-party red tape, dodging hospital buyouts, and shielding patients from data mining and privacy intrusions.

But the biggest obstacle to great medical care is the socialist brigade rallying around Medicare for All, the proposed federally financed program that boasts no premiums, deductibles or copays, and medical, dental, vision and hearing benefits. What could possibly go wrong? As they say, show me the money. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government will spend about $1 trillion on healthcare programs in 2018. A detailed Mercatus Center analysis concluded that Medicare-for-All would add $32.6 trillion to federal expenditures during its first 10 years.

Currently, payroll taxes and income tax on Social Security benefits fund Medicare’s Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) estimates this fund will be depleted in 2026. General tax revenues and beneficiary premiums fund medical services coverage (Part B). Medicare for All would be financed by current Medicare funds – minus the insurance premiums – and would be supplemented by the ever-popular “taxing the rich.” Beware: the definition of “the rich” will be ratcheted down to encompass more taxpayers.

Then there is the coercive nature of Medicare. A beneficiary’s opting out of Medicare Part A means forfeiting all past and future Social Security benefits. Medicare for All makes it clear that no straying from the herd is allowed: neither private insurers nor employers can offer insurance that competes with the government.

Fortunately, more choices are becoming available for potential patients. The House of Representatives recently passed two packages of expansions of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) (H.R. 6199H.R. 6311). To name a few benefits, the contribution limit for an HSA nearly doubled to $6,650 for individuals and to $13,300 for families. HSAs would be allowed to pay for direct primary care (DPC) monthly fees. Best yet, anyone would be able to purchase a lower-premium catastrophic plan — removing the ACA’s under age 30 restriction. And purchasers of “bronze” and catastrophic (“copper”) plans would be able to contribute to an HSA.

Improving HSAs is not a trivial goal. HSAs are portable. HSA contributions reduce taxable income, money in the account grows tax-free, and money can be withdrawn tax-free to cover qualified medical expenses. The Employee Benefits Institute estimates that a person saving in an HSA for 40 years, assuming a 2.5% return, could accumulate up to $360,000.

The Executive Branch acted on CMS’s report that lower-cost alternatives were necessary given the rising premiums responsible for the decline in the purchase of unsubsidized ACA plans. The Administration created new rules for short-term limited duration (STLD) insurance policies, which are not bound by the ACA’s restrictive mandates.

STLD plans, defined by the Obama administration as less than three-months duration, can be up to 12 months duration and can include an option for guaranteed renewal up to 36 months. Californians may be out of luck if the proposed consumer protection legislation prohibiting STLD policies makes it to the governor’s desk.

According to CMS, in the fourth quarter of 2016 the average monthly premium for individuals for a STLD policy was approximately $124, compared with $393 for an unsubsidized ACA-compliant plan with comparable $5,000 deductibles. That is an annual savings of $3,228. Even adding $50 per month for a direct primary care practice, an individual saves $2,628 a year. With DPC, all primary care services, including chronic disease management and access to low-priced commonly used medications are included in the upfront price.

The HSA bills and the new STLD rules are an antidote to the erosion of our freedom to contract under the guise of protecting us from “junk” insurance. Medicare-for-All is not the cure for health care ills. Once the central planners lure the masses into dependence on “free” stuff, abuse of power ensues. Voluntary participation by physicians becomes mandatory. When the money tree withers, the non-negotiable provider payments are slashed, and services to patients are rationed.

To mitigate the unacceptable, sometimes fatal wait times in the Veterans Administration health system a bipartisan Congress looked to the backbone of great medicine: private practice physicians. Independent medical practices will lead the way to achieving great affordable medical care through competition and consumer choice.


Dr. Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD is a board-certified anesthesiologist and member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Dr. Marilyn Singleton ran for Congress in California’s 13th District in 2012, fighting to give its 700,000 citizens the right to control their own lives.

While still working in the operating room, Dr. Marilyn Singleton attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law. She also interned at the National Health Law Program and has practiced both insurance and health law.

Dr. Marilyn Singleton has taught specialized classes dealing with issues such as the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. She also speaks out about her concerns with Obamacare, the apology law and death panels.

Congressional candidate Dr. Marilyn Singleton presented her views on challenging the political elite to physicians at the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons annual meeting in 2012.

Follow Dr. Marilyn Singleton on Twitter @MSingletonMDJD

More info about Dr. Marilyn Singleton

A Health Savings Account Could Save Your Life

By Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D

Some pundits blamed algorithmic trading for the stock market’s recent wild ride. “Algo-trading” relies on computers programmed to follow defined instructions for placing trades. For example, the computer buys 50 shares of stock when its 50-day moving average goes above the 200-day moving average. Period. Algo-trading was popularized as a systematic approach that removes human emotion, intuition, or instinct from the transaction.

Advanced medical algorithms are becoming the next best thing. Their intended purpose is to improve and standardize decisions made in the delivery of medical care, enabling multiple levels of health care practitioners to use the same “thought” process.

A medical algorithm can be a list of risk factors for various conditions, such as heart disease, or a simple calculation such as BMI (body mass index) utilizing height and weight to determine ideal numbers. Many algorithms are flowcharts with a binary decision tree: if BMI is greater than 25, do this; if not, do that. Newer algorithms based on machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence that simulates how humans learn, can analyze and diagnose radiology images or pathology slides or predict the actual risk of developing certain conditions.

Some of these advances are extraordinary and will likely add to our medical armamentarium. But they do not exist in a vacuum. Concomitant with the flow chart revolution, patients complain that when barely a nanosecond has passed since the physician’s first “hello,” they are handed a DNR form.

Yes, it is a good thing for a physician to know about a patient’s desires at what could be the end of his life. But it is unsettling when the 35 year-old “provider” cheerfully encourages a patient to fill out the form, crowing that she signed her DNR form. The patient is thinking, “you’ll feel a lot different about it at 65 than you do now.” Unfortunately in today’s healthcare delivery factories, when illness strikes “your” doctor may be a previously unknown-to-your hospitalist whose sole knowledge about you, the human being, is lab tests, x-rays, findings on physical exam, and a form you signed 10 years ago. Your family relationships, religious views, and the like are not his purview. When death is actually walking down your street you want to know and trust those in charge of your life.

In a recent case, a toddler was declared brain dead by one hospital, but apparently showed signs of life. His mother sought but failed to stop the removal of her child from life support. After the plug was pulled, she challenged the constitutionality of California’s Determination of Death Act which effectively takes away life-and-death decisions from parents. The Act provides that a person is dead when, in accordance with accepted medical standards, either the body or the brain has irreversible cessation of all function. A federal court dismissed the case, reasoning that the State cannot be held responsible for its determination-of-death laws, because doctors have “broad and legitimate discretion” to end patients’ life support.

Less obvious but nonetheless devastating, is the power Medicare, Medicaid, and insurers exercise over life and death through pre-authorizations and denials of claims. In a lawsuit against Aetna for denial of benefits which the patient alleges “almost killed him,” Aetna’s medical director admitted under oath that he never looked at patients’ medical records when deciding whether to approve or deny care.

If physicians have the power over life and death, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” takes on added significance as more states adopt physician-assisted suicide laws. Even in Belgium where euthanasia is legal, its proponents are increasingly uncomfortable with the speedy approval of psychiatric patients’ requests to die. Discomfort turned to outrage when a dementia patient was euthanized when there was no evidence that the patient had asked to die.

As independent physicians we want to use the best advances to help our patients but we do not want medicine to devolve into paint-by-the-numbers. We dread the day when “algo-medicine” devoid of human emotion, intuition, or instinct will say Sell! (to the mortician) when the patient hits 70? Buy! if the baby has no problems discerned on prenatal ultrasound?

If you want to ensure that your doctor has your back, run – don’t walk to a direct primary care practice (DPC). Tell your congresspersons to add the 1-page Primary Care Enhancement Act (HR 365 / S 1358) to upcoming “must pass” legislation. This will allow patients to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to pay for DPC. Your life could depend on it.


Dr. Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD is a board-certified anesthesiologist and member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Dr. Marilyn Singleton ran for Congress in California’s 13th District in 2012, fighting to give its 700,000 citizens the right to control their own lives.

While still working in the operating room, Dr. Marilyn Singleton attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law. She also interned at the National Health Law Program and has practiced both insurance and health law.

Dr. Marilyn Singleton has taught specialized classes dealing with issues such as the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. She also speaks out about her concerns with Obamacare, the apology law and death panels.

Congressional candidate Dr. Marilyn Singleton presented her views on challenging the political elite to physicians at the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons annual meeting in 2012.

Follow Dr. Marilyn Singleton on Twitter @MSingletonMDJD

More info about Dr. Marilyn Singleton

Legislative Update – March 15, 2017

“Beware of the Ides of March as both parties slowly kill us all off!” ~Marilyn Singleton, MD, JD reports on the latest battles in health care legislation on Capitol Hill.

Revisions to the ACA
Revisions to the ACA continued to pile in even as the “repeal and replace” was in progress. What was on their minds? These bills seem like an exercise in futility while negotiations over a major health care “system” overhaul are occurring. These revisions will likely be ignored while our congresspersons mull over the American Health Care Act (AHCA). At least these bills will be written when nothing happens to the ACA and we are still stuck with it.
I include some alternative bill to the American Health Care Act since they, like the AHCA, maintain provisions of the ACA.

 

The American Health Care Act (AHCA – working bill; no official bill yet)
The bill would repeal and replace various tax-related provisions of the ACA. Rep. Paul Ryan indicates that this bill is designed as the first phase of a three-step process. By focusing on taxes, the bill can be introduced using the reconciliation process. (Reconciliation allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. In the Senate, reconciliation bills aren’t subject to filibuster and the scope of amendments is limited). This summary is based on the House Ways and Means Committee majority summary. The bulk of the proposed bill repeals and replaces health-related tax policy:

(1) Recapture Excess Advance Payments Of Premium Tax Credits
The amount a household is required to pay towards their premiums is based on income. If a household’s income increases during the tax year, excess premium tax credits may result. Under the ACA, for households with incomes less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level there are certain limits on the amount the household is required to repay the federal government for the excess premium tax credits. For tax years 2018 and 2019, any individual who was overpaid in premium tax credits must repay the entire excess amount, regardless of income.

(2) Additional Modifications To Premium Tax Credit
Under the ACA, qualified health plans must meet certain requirements for households to be eligible for the premium tax credit. This section: (a) amends those requirements to make available premium tax credits for the purchase of “catastrophic-only” qualified health plans and certain qualified plans not offered through an Exchange; (b) prohibits premium tax credits from being used to purchase plans that offer elective abortion coverage; (c) revises the schedule under which an individual’s or family’s share of premiums is determined by adjusting for household income and the age of the individual or family members.

(3) Premium Tax Credit
This section repeals the ACA’s premium tax credit beginning in 2020.

(4) Small Business Tax Credit
This section repeals the ACA’s small business tax credit beginning in 2020. Between 2018 and 2020, under the proposal, the small business tax credit generally is not available with respect to a qualified health plan that provides coverage relating to elective abortions.

(5) Individual Mandate
This section would reduce the penalty to zero for failure to maintain minimum essential coverage. The bill would provide retroactive relief to those impacted by the penalty in 2016.

(6) Employer Mandate
This section would reduce the penalty to zero for failure to provide minimum essential coverage. The bill would provide retroactive relief to those impacted by the penalty in 2016.

(7) Repeal Of The Tax On Employee Health Insurance Premiums And Health Plan Benefits
The ACA imposed a 40 percent excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage (“Cadillac plans”). The tax will go into effect in 2020. This section changes the effective date of the tax until December 31, 2024.

(8) Repeal Of The Tax On Over-The-Counter Medications
This section repeals the ACA exclusion of over-the-counter medications from the definition of qualified medical expenses.

(9) Repeal Of Increase Of Tax On Health Savings Accounts
Distributions from an HSA or Archer MSA that are used for qualified medical expenses are excludible from gross income. Distributions that are not used for qualified medical expenses are includible in income and are generally subject to an additional tax. The ACA increased the percentage of the tax on distributions that are not used for qualified medical expenses to 20 percent. This section lowers the rate to pre-ACA percentages, effective for distributions after December 31, 2017.

(10) Repeal Of Limitations On Contributions To Flexible Savings Accounts
This section repeals the ACA limits the amount an employer or individual may contribute to a health Flexible Spending Account (FSA) to $2,500, indexed for cost-of-living adjustments, effective December 31, 2017.

(11) Repeal Of Medical Device Tax
This section repeals the ACA’s 2.3 percent medical device excise tax beginning after December 31, 2017.

(12) Repeal Of Elimination Of Deduction For Expenses Allocable To Medicare Part D Subsidy
This section re-instates the pre-ACA business-expense deduction for retiree prescription drug costs without reduction by the amount of any federal subsidy, beginning after December 31, 2017.

(13) Repeal Of Increase In Income Threshold For Medical Expense Deduction
The ACA increased the AGI percentage threshold from 7.5 percent to 10 percent if the taxpayer or spouse was aged 65 or older. This section restores the pre-ACA AGI percentage threshold to 7.5-percent for all taxpayers beginning in 2018 and extends the special rule for those aged 65 or older through this year.

(14) Repeal of Medicare Tax Increase
This section repeals the ACA’s Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) surtax based on income at a rate equal to 0.9 percent of an employee’s wages or a self-employed individual’s self-employment income, beginning in 2018.

(15) NEW: Refundable Tax Credit For Health Insurance
This section creates an advanceable, refundable tax credit for the purchase of state-approved, major medical health insurance and unsubsidized COBRA coverage. To be eligible, generally, an individual must not have access to government health insurance programs or an offer from any employer; and be a citizen, national or qualified alien of the United States, and not incarcerated. The credits are adjusted by age, increasing from $2,000 for those under age 30 to $4,000 to those over age 60. The credits are additive for a family and capped at $14,000.

(16) Increase Maximum Contribution Limit To Health Savings Accounts
This section increases the basic limit on aggregate Health Savings Account contributions for a year to equal the maximum on the sum of the annual deductible and out-of-pocket expenses permitted under a high deductible health plan. Thus, the basic limit will be at least $6,550 in the case of self-only coverage and $13,100 in the case of family coverage beginning in 2018.

(17) Allow Both Spouses To Make Catch-Up Contributions
This section would effectively allow both spouses to make catch-up contributions to one HSA beginning in 2018.

(18) Special Rule for Certain Medical Expenses Incurred Before Establishment of HSA
This section sets forth certain circumstances under which HSA withdrawals can be used to pay qualified medical expenses incurred before the HSA was established. Starting in 2018, if an HSA is established during the 60-day period beginning on the date that an individual’s coverage under a high deductible health plan begins, then the HSA is treated as having been established on the date coverage under the high deductible health plan begins for purposes of determining if an expense incurred is a qualified medical expense.

Other Provisions
*Repeal of ACA’s 10% indoor Tanning Tax, beginning 2018.

*Repeal Of ACA’s Net Investment Tax
This section repeals the ACA’s 3.8% net investment tax on individuals, estates, and trusts with incomes above certain amounts, starting in 2018.

*Remuneration From Certain InsurersWhile this marks a return to free capitalism, it is also a gift to the insurers who appear to be driving all health care “reform.”
Generally, employers may deduct the remuneration paid to employees as “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. The ACA added a limitation for certain health insurance providers that exceeds $500,000 paid to an officer, director, or employee. This section repeals the limit on the deduction of a covered health insurance provider for compensation attributable to services performed by an applicable individual starting in 2018.

*Repeal of Tax on Prescription Medications
This section repeals the ACA’s annual fee (tax) on brand pharmaceutical manufacturers such that the tax would not apply for years beginning after December 31, 2017.

*Repeal Of Health Insurance Tax
This section repeals the ACA’s annual fee (tax) on health insurers beginning after December 31, 2017.

Full text: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/03/06/text-american-health-care-act/

 

Other ACA “Replacements”:

On January 23, 2017, S. 191, the Patient Freedom Act of 2017,(73 pages) was introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. The legislation aims to shift the question of repeal to states by allowing them to continue to use the ACA as is or move to state-specific plans that rely on health savings accounts and decreased financial support from the federal government.

The bill eliminated from the ACA:
(1) the individual mandate, the employer mandate
(2) mandated benefit packages

The bill maintains the ACA’s:
(1) rules allowing children to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26
(2) preventing denial of coverage based upon pre-existing conditions
(3) prohibiting both annual and lifetime limits by health insurance companies.

Each state would have one of three choices:
(1) re-adopt the ACA on a state level,
(2) create a new state-designed plan with federal assistance but less money than the ACA provided, or
(3) create a new state-designed plan with no federal assistance at all.

An article in The Federalist, “4 Ways the Patient Freedom Act Is Worse Than Obamacare,” notes that the bill would expand taxpayer funding for abortions (by providing federal funding for states as a workaround to the ban on federally funding abortions), could increase total federal expenditures by increasing Medicaid funding even for states choosing not to expand the program, perpetuates government-mandated price controls, and creates a “big government” automatic enrollment program.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s191/text.

 

On January 24, 2017, S. 222, the Obamacare Replacement Act (149 pages) was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, MD (R-KY) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. While the American Health Care Act is what is on the table, Rand Paul is fighting for his proposals. The basis for his proposals are personal freedom saving money for individuals and the federal government. But it does not repeal the ACA, leaves many taxes in place, and
The bill eliminates many of the parts of the ACA:
(1) the employer mandate, the individual mandate, Medicaid expansion.
(2) most of federal regulations that mandate what health plans are required to cover, mandatory birth control coverage, community rating.
(3) ban on insurer discrimination on the basis of a patient’s preexisting condition. Sen. Paul’s bill returns to pre-ACA rules from HIPAA which provides that individuals cannot be denied eligibility or benefits based on certain “health factors” when enrolling in a health plan. Additionally, they may not be charged more than similarly situated individuals based on any health factors.
The bill adds new provisions which would:
(3) allow insurance to be sold across state lines
(4) encourages health savings accounts (HSAs) by providing a tax credit of up to $5,000 (vs the current $3,400 per individual).
(5)provide uncapped deduction for individual-provided health insurance.
(5) provide refundable tax credit for health insurance premiums, but the refundable portion of the credit only applies up to the limit of an individual’s payroll taxes paid.
(6) allow the IRS to give doctors a tax deduction equal to the amount they would otherwise charge for charity care, up to 10 percent of a doctor’s income for the year.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s222/text.

 

Repeal the IPAB
On February 1, 2017, S. 260, the Protecting Seniors’ Access to Medicare Act of 2017, was introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. This bill repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and any provision of law amended by such sections is hereby restored as if such sections had not been enacted into law.
Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s260/text.

On February 1, 2017, S. 251, the Protecting Medicare from Executive Action Act of 2017, was introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. The bill repeals section 3403 of the Affordable Care Act – the IPAB – and any provision of law amended by such sections is hereby restored as if such sections had not been enacted into law.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s251/text.

 

Repeal of Other Tax-Related ACA Provisions
On February 14, 2017, H.R. 1051, the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors Act, was introduced by Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ) and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to roll back the increased income threshold for determining the amount of the tax deduction for medical expenses. Currently, individual taxpayers may only deduct those medical expenses that exceed 10% of their adjusted gross income. This bill reduces that percentage to 7.5%.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1051/text.

On February 16, 2017, H.R. 1150, Tanning Tax Repeal Act of 2017, was introduced by Rep. George Holding (R-NC) and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1150/text.

On February 17, 2017, H.R. 1204, the Responsible Additions and Increases to Sustain Employee Health Benefits Act of 2017, was introduced by Rep, Steve Stivers (R-OH) and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to the tax exclusion for distributions from health flexible spending arrangements provided under a cafeteria plan, to: (1) increase the annual limit on employee salary reduction contributions to $5,000, with an additional $500 for each additional employee dependent above two dependents that has not been taken into account by another person for the year; (2) revise the adjustment for inflation after 2017; and (3) allow a carryforward into the next year for unused amounts in such plans.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1204/text.

 

Expansion of Religious Exemptions
On February 17, 2017, H.R. 1201, the Equitable Access to Care and Health Act (EACH Act), was introduced by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to expand the religious conscience exemption under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to exempt individuals who rely solely on a religious method of healing and for whom the acceptance of medical health services would be inconsistent with their religious beliefs from the requirement to purchase and maintain minimum essential health care coverage.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1201/text.

 

Physician Practice Issues

On February 2, 2017, S. 284, the End Surprise Billing Act of 2017, was introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Its sister bill, H.R. 817, introduced by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX). This bill amends the Medicare law to require a critical access hospital or other hospital to comply, as a condition of participation in Medicare, with certain requirements related to billing for out-of-network services. The justification for the bill is that the ACA does not limit what emergency-care providers may balance bill patients beyond the amounts that health plans allow. To fully protect patients, federal law should prohibit any balance billing by providers for emergency services, also including ambulance services. In addition, a comprehensive solution should cover the totality of a patient’s treatment after coming to the emergency room, including any care during an ensuing hospital admission (either at the same or a transfer hospital). This requirement could be imposed, similar to EMTALA, as a condition of providers participating in Medicare.

With respect to an individual who has health benefits coverage and is seeking services, a hospital must provide notice to individuals with any type of health insurance as to:
(1) whether the hospital, or any of the providers furnishing services to the individual at the hospital, is not within the health care provider network or otherwise a participating provider with respect to the individual’s health care coverage; and
(2) if so, the estimated out-of-pocket costs of the services to the individual.
At least 24 hours prior to providing those services, the hospital must document that the individual: (1) has been provided with the required notice, and (2) consents to be furnished with the services and charged an amount approximate to the estimate provided. Otherwise, the hospital may not charge the individual more than the individual would have been required to pay if the services had been furnished by an in-network or participating provider.
With respect to such an individual who is seeking same-day emergency services, a hospital may not charge more than the individual would be required to pay for such services furnished by an in-network or participating provider.

Full text (Senate): https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s284/text.
Full text (House): https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr817/text.

Medical Education
On February 16, 2017, H.R. 1167, Enhancing Opportunities for Medical Doctors Act of 2017 was introduced by Rep. Mia Love and referred to the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees. The bill would amend the Medicare law to redistribute unused residency positions for which graduate medical education costs are paid under Medicare. Specifically, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must: (1) reduce a hospital’s resident limit by a specified amount if the hospital has unused residency positions and is not a rural hospital with fewer than 250 acute care inpatient beds, and (2) increase the resident limit for each qualifying hospital that applies for an increase. In aggregate, the number of increased positions shall equal the number of reduced positions.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1167/text.

Use of Unapproved Medical Products by Patients with a Terminal Illness
On January 24, 2017, S. 204, the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act of 2017, was introduced by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. This bill requires the federal government to allow unrestricted manufacturing, distribution, prescribing, and dispensing of experimental drugs, biological products, and medical devices that are: (1) intended to treat a patient who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and (2) authorized by state law. The federal government must allow unrestricted possession and use of such treatments by patients certified by a physician as having exhausted all other treatment options.
A manufacturer, distributor, prescriber, dispenser, possessor, or user of such a treatment has no liability regarding the treatment.

The outcome of manufacture, distribution, prescribing, dispensing, possession, or use of such a treatment may not be used by a federal agency to adversely impact review or approval of the treatment.

The treatment must: (1) have successfully completed a phase 1 (initial, small scale) clinical trial; (2) remain under investigation in a clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (3) not be approved, licensed, or cleared for sale under the Federal Food, Drug, or Cosmetic Act or the Public Health Service Act.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s204/text.

Expansion of duties of Mid-levels
On February 16, 2017, H.R. 1155 was introduced by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) ad referred to the House Energy and Commerce and on Ways and Means Committees. The bill would amend the Medicare law to allow physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse specialists to supervise cardiac, intensive cardiac, and pulmonary rehabilitation programs.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1155/text.

Will Physicians Be On the List?
On February 15, 2017, H.J. Res. 42, introduced by Kevin Brady (R-TX), passed the House (236 – 189). The resolution disapproves and nullifies the rule issued by the Department of Labor on August 1, 2016, defining the occupations eligible for drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants. “Occupations” listed by the Department that may regularly require drug testing are only jobs that require carrying a firearm, aviation flight crews, air traffic controllers, commercial drivers, railroad crews, pipeline crew members, and commercial maritime crew members. This list is considered too narrow and the rule generally considered too prescriptive and overly constraining of states.
Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hjres42/text.

On February 16, 2017, S.J. Res. 23, a joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applications, was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance Committee.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/sjres23/text.

 

Abortion-Related Bills

On January 30, 2017, S. 241, the Protect Funding for Women’s Health Care Act, was introduced by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. This bill prohibits federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s241/text.

On January 31, 2017, H.R. 771, the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2017, was introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and referred to House Energy and Commerce and Oversight and Government Reform Committees. This bill is in response to H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act passed by the House in February 2017. That bill made permanent the ban of federal funding for abortions as set forth in the Hyde Amendment which Congress has passed every year since 1976.

This bill, H.R. 771, requires the federal government: (1) to ensure coverage for abortion care in public health insurance programs including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); (2) as an employer or health plan sponsor, to ensure coverage for abortion care for participants and beneficiaries; and (3) as a provider of health services, to ensure that abortion care is made available to individuals who are eligible to receive services.
The federal government may not prohibit, restrict, or otherwise inhibit insurance coverage of abortion care by state or local governments or by private health plans. State and local governments may not prohibit, restrict, or otherwise inhibit insurance coverage of abortion care by private health plans.

Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr771/text.

You’re Old, You’re Sick, Get Over It

by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.

Senior citizens, don’t be fooled. The federal government asserts that Medicare sets a high bar for medical care and we are lucky to have it. Not so. It does, however, claim a virtual monopoly on health insurance coverage for all eligible persons.

All citizens who receive Social Security or Railroad Retirement Board benefits automatically receive a Medicare Part A card in the mail around their 65th birthday. Part A covers hospital, hospice, and limited skilled nursing services. This entitlement has very long strings attached. If retirees disenroll from Medicare Part A they lose future Social Security benefits and must return all past benefits. Even working seniors enrolled in Medicare or collecting Social Security cannot participate in Health Savings Accounts (HSA)/high deductible health plans.

Most new Medicare eligibles also automatically receive a Part B card (coverage for physician services and outpatient injectables, particularly cancer medications). Part B is voluntary and recipients are advised they can send the card back if they want to opt out. Medicare warns that a late enrollment penalty awaits the tardy: the monthly premium for Part B may go up 10% for each full 12-month period that they could have had Part B, but didn’t sign up for it—in perpetuity.

Bullying aside, it sounds pretty good. But Medicare, whose expenditures are 15 per cent of the federal budget, faces financial challenges, mainly due to our aging population. When Medicare started life expectancy was 70 years. Now it is 78.8 years. In 2012, per person personal health-related spending for the 65 and older population was more than 5 times higher than spending per child and 3 times the spending per working-age person. The Medicare Board of Trustees 2015 report estimates that under current law the Medicare trust fund will become insolvent in 2030.

Enter the Medicare hospice benefit in 1982. Policymakers believed this program would lower costs by reducing “aggressive” end-of-life treatments. With hospice care, Medicare pays a daily rate for services to persons with life expectancies of 6 months or less who choose to forgo life-saving or potentially curative treatment for the presumed terminal illness and related conditions.

But Medicare hospice expenditures are rising. Realistically, it isn’t easy to predict who will live and who will die and when. Not only has the number of Medicare hospice patients with not immediately terminal conditions such as heart failure and dementia dramatically increased, 19 percent of such patients receive services for much longer than 6 months.

The renewed focus on Medicare cost containment has produced various suggestions, including vouchers, tax credits, extending income-based premiums, increasing the eligibility age, and allowing contributions to HSAs in retirement.

Expanding HSAs presents the best opportunity to regain real choice and control over our medical care consistent with one’s personal values.

Instead, a culture of hastening death has gradually evolved, disguised as “death with dignity.” First, California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont have legal physician-assisted suicide, with 20 other states considering legalization. Second, when older folks fall ill, despite the uncertainty of medical prognosis, some families feel they are not merely offered hospice as a choice but are steered toward it. Third, disturbing news articles report hospice treatment plans for those who aren’t dying fast enough: “pain management” in terminal doses.

Finally, money talks. In the hospice program, if the patient goes to the hospital and the hospice “provider” (not one’s own physician) did not make the arrangements, the patient might be responsible for the entire cost of the hospital care. Additionally, the Affordable Care Act created a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The Institute investigates the effectiveness of various medical interventions, but is prohibited from treating “the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, nondisabled, or not terminally ill.” However, the data may be used to determine coverage and payment rates. The patient can choose a federally determined “low-value” service, but the cost would be prohibitive. And the low physician payment rates will ensure that physicians’ practices will not be actively seeking such patients. It is an empty choice.

One day in the hospital costs Medicare about $708. One day in hospice costs $183. One hundred twenty morphine tablets cost $20.88 retail. Health Savings Account money in the bank creates real options. But if you leave the choice up to the government, with a roll of the dice you could figuratively be in Jail rather than passing GO and getting another turn at life, just like in the game of Monopoly.


Dr. Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD is a board-certified anesthesiologist and member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Dr. Marilyn Singleton ran for Congress in California’s 13th District in 2012, fighting to give its 700,000 citizens the right to control their own lives.

While still working in the operating room, Dr. Marilyn Singleton attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law. She also interned at the National Health Law Program and has practiced both insurance and health law.

Dr. Marilyn Singleton has taught specialized classes dealing with issues such as the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. She also speaks out about her concerns with Obamacare, the apology law and death panels.

Congressional candidate Dr. Marilyn Singleton presented her views on challenging the political elite to physicians at the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons annual meeting in 2012.

Follow Dr. Marilyn Singleton on Twitter @MSingletonMDJD

More info about Dr. Marilyn Singleton

I’m Sorry for Your Loss

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD.,

In Law and Order re-runs after some tragedy has occurred, prior to grilling the victim’s family the police officer quickly states the obligatory phrase, “I’m sorry for your loss.” It is sterile, meaningless, and as heartfelt as the streaming digital “Thank you” at the automated gas pump.

Fortunately, genuine compassion has been given another reprieve. Pennsylvania recently became the 37th state to enact an “apology law.” When there is an unanticipated outcome of medical care, apology laws allow physicians to express sincere feelings without fear that such expressions will be used against them in court.

These statutes range from shielding all “statements, affirmations, gestures or conduct expressing apology, fault, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion or a general sense of benevolence” (Connecticut) to expressions of sympathy or benevolent gestures, i.e., “actions which convey a sense of compassion or commiseration emanating from humane impulses” (California).

Psychologists teach us that an apology is an important way of “showing respect and empathy for the wronged person.” Apologies improve patient-doctor communication and reduce patient anger. A 2010 Annals of Internal Medicine study looked at University of Michigan and Boston’s Brigham and Women’s hospitals. The study found that malpractice claims decreased by almost one half where hospitals admit and apologize for mistakes.

In an age where physicians are increasingly engrossed in compliance paperwork and have their eyes glued to the computer screen with electronic medical records, any tool that injects humanity is more than welcome. The findings in a recent paper in Journal of Hospital Medicine were telling: only 4 percent of interns practiced “etiquette-based” medicine.

Such etiquette includes (1) introducing themselves; (2) explaining their role in patient care; (3) touching their patients with a handshake, reassuring gesture, or physical exam; (4) sitting and talking with patients; and (5) asking open-ended questions to get patients to relax and talk more about themselves.

These interns are busily learning algorithms, evidence-based guidelines, and fulfilling regulatory mandates. But they will soon discover that checklists will never replace thoughtful individualized care.

A Pennsylvania community hospital Emergency Department looked at physician time usage: direct patient contact, data and order entry, discussion with colleagues, and reviewing records and test results. A whopping 43 percent of their time was spent on data entry versus 28 percent on direct patient contact.

The depersonalization of medicine is disconcerting to be sure. But it is one band on the spectrum of disconnectedness. What is more troubling is the accepted disconnection between people and facts.

At least 80 percent of the comments to the newspaper article explaining the apology law were by people tethered to their hatred. The willfully uninformed railed about how letting incompetent doctors off the hook was what we can expect from a Republican governor.

Per usual, they had not read the article. The law does not shield the physician from malpractice lawsuits; it says that compassionate statements cannot be part of the collective evidence that he breached the standard of care.

The fact is that Pennsylvania’s Democratically controlled legislature unanimously passed the law and the Republican governor signed it. I suppose haters can blow off unjustified steam and begrudge physicians the ability to express spontaneous, unrehearsed, uncalculated empathy.

Of course people reinvent the truth. We have learned from our professor-in-chief: “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Period.”

Well, I am sorry for our losses. I’m sorry for our loss of intelligent discussion of issues in the public forum. I’m sorry for our loss of time with patients when time is absorbed by bureaucratic red tape.

I’m sorry for our loss of patients’ full disclosure of private information for fear it will reach the government’s prying eyes. I’m sorry for your loss of choice of physicians and hospitals. I’m sorry for your loss of low-priced catastrophic insurance policies. I’m sorry for your loss of uncapped contributions to health flexible spending accounts.

I’m sorry for your loss of full-time work hours. I’m sorry that the 20 and 30-year olds who can least afford it are expected to finance healthcare. I’m sorry that the government thinks that having an insurance card equals access to care.

I’m sorry that ObamaCare true believers do not realize that there’s always free cheese in the mousetrap. Period.


Dr. Marilyn SingletonDr. Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD is a board-certified anesthesiologist and member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Dr. Marilyn Singleton ran for Congress in California’s 13th District in 2012, fighting to give its 700,000 citizens the right to control their own lives.

While still working in the operating room, Dr. Marilyn Singleton attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law. She also interned at the National Health Law Program and has practiced both insurance and health law.

Dr. Marilyn Singleton has taught specialized classes dealing with issues such as the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers. She also speaks out about her concerns with Obamacare, the apology law and death panels.

Congressional candidate Dr. Marilyn Singleton presented her views on challenging the political elite to physicians at the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons annual meeting in 2012.

Follow Dr. Marilyn Singleton on Twitter @MSingletonMDJD

More info about Dr. Marilyn Singleton