Congress Seeks To Limit Transfers Between Social Security and Disability Funds

A sweeping rules package the House approved at the start of the 114th Congress includes a provision that has set off a war of words about the future of Social Security and benefits for disabled workers.

The measure would stop House lawmakers  from transferring money from Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund to the program’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund unless lawmakers took steps to “improve the actuarial balance” of both funds.

To improve that balance, Congress would have to cut benefits, raise taxes, or find another way to put both the retirement and disability funds on firmer footing.  Lawmakers have in the past transferred funds from the retirement to the disability fund, and vice versa, nearly a dozen times.

Proponents of the change say it is needed to strengthen both the underlying Social Security program and its disability fund. Advocates for the poor and disabled say the move could harm millions of the nation’s most vulnerable Americans by reducing the level of benefits they now receive.

What follows are some frequently asked questions about Social Security’s Disability Insurance, also known as SSDI.

Q: What is Social Security Disability Insurance?

A: This part of the Social Security program provides cash payments to workers when they are disabled and off-the-job as a result. According to the Social Security Administration, the number of work credits you need to qualify for disability benefits depends on your age when you become disabled. Generally, though, you need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years, ending with the year before the disability. Younger workers may qualify with fewer credits.

Q: How many people receive it?

A: Nationwide, approximately 11 million Social Security disability beneficiaries receive about $12 billion in monthly benefits, acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin told aHouse Ways and Means subcommittee last year.  Due to a variety of demographic trends — including overall population growth, more women in the workforce, the aging of the Baby Boom generation and the increase in the full retirement age for Social Security — the number of disabled workers has tripled since 1980 and doubled since 1995, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The typical beneficiary is in his or her late 50s and has a severe mental, musculoskeletal or other debilitating impairment. Program payments also went to family members – 160,000 spouses and 1.9 million children, according to the center. Disability beneficiaries receive an average of about $14,000 a year in payments.

Q: How is the program financed and is it running out of money?

A: The entire Social Security Program – including the Disability Insurance Trust Fund — is funded through a 12.4% payroll tax assessed on the first $118,500  of income.  Employees are taxed 6.2% of their income, and employers match the employee taxes by paying the other 6.2%. Individuals who are self-employed are responsible for paying the entire 12.4%.

Within the 6.2 percent, 5.3 percent finances the retirement and survivor programs and 0.9 percent funds the disability payments. Unless Congress takes action to bolster the disability trust fund, beneficiaries would see disability payments cut by about 20 percent in late 2016, according to program trustees.

According to Kathy Ruffing, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, reallocating some taxes between the retirement and disability trust funds is a historically noncontroversial measure that Congress has taken 11 times in both directions, depending on which fund was running short. “Another reallocation to replenish the DI trust fund wouldn’t threaten seniors, contrary to the [House measure’s] implicit attempt to put retirement and disability beneficiaries against each other,” Ruffing wrote.

Reallocating taxes from the retirement fund to the disability fund to put both on equal financial footing would increase the solvency of the DI fund until 2033 while advancing the retirement fund’s depletion by one year, from 2034 to 2033. Since the retirement fund is much bigger than the disability fund, “a modest reallocation barely dents” the retirement fund, Ruffing added.

Q: Why do some lawmakers want to stop funds being transferred between the two programs?

A: Proponents of the House rules change say it’s necessary to preserve both the core Social Security program and the disability program.

“Anyone who cares about finding a fair solution for both the catastrophically disabled who depend on SSDI and senior citizens who depend on Social Security knows that we must find a long-term solution which protects both of them rather than a short term band aid which threatens them both,” said Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., who co-sponsored the rules change along with Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas.  In July, Johnson, who chairs the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, sponsored legislation to deal with fraud in the disability program, noting that “recent scandals in Puerto Rico, West Virginia, and New York have highlighted the DI program’s growing vulnerability to sophisticated fraud rings.”

Others say the House rules change could cause harm.. In an open letter to Congress, Max Richtman, president and chief executive officer of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, said the shift would “cut benefits for Americans who have worked hard all their lives, paid into Social Security, and rely on their Social Security benefits, including Disability Insurance, in order to survive.” In a Jan. 6 letter to House lawmakers, AARP opposed the House measure as well, writing that it “undermines Congress’s ability to fully consider all potential legislative solutions – particularly options successfully considered many times in the past.”

Q: Does the House rules change mean that Congress cannot shift money between two funds?

A:  Since this is a House rules change, it does not apply to the Senate. While a House member could raise a point of order against any reallocation, that could be defeated if enough members wanted to shift funds between the two accounts.

But it’s clear that that the House measure fuels the politically explosive debate over Social Security, especially ahead of the 2016 presidential election. “It really is a very strong message from the House Republican leadership that this is on their radar screen and that they do not want to transfer money from the old age program to the disability program unless there are some significant changes in the way the disability program is run. I think that’s the message here,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and editor of the TaxVox blog.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

CDC: Treatment of Influenza

As a follow-up to HAN 00374 (http://emergency.cdc.gov/han/han00374.asp, Dec. 3, 2014), CDC is providing 1) a summary of influenza antiviral drug treatment recommendations, 2) an update about approved treatment drugs and supply this season, and 3) background information for patients regarding anti-influenza treatment.

Summary: Widespread influenza activity is being reported in most U.S. states, with influenza A (H3N2) viruses most common. H3N2-predominant flu seasons have been associated with more hospitalizations and deaths in older people and young children in the past. In addition, approximately two-thirds of H3N2 viruses that have been tested at CDC are antigenically or genetically different from the H3N2 vaccine virus. This difference suggests that vaccine effectiveness may be reduced this season. High hospitalization rates are being observed, similar to what was seen during the 2012-2013 influenza season. Hospitalization rates are especially high among people 65 years and older. In this context, the use of influenza antiviral drugs as an adjunct to vaccination becomes even more important than usual in protecting people from influenza. Antiviral medications are effective in treating influenza and reducing complications. Antivirals are available and recommended, but evidence from the current and previous influenza seasons suggests that they are severely underutilized.

This CDC Health Update is being issued: 1) to remind clinicians that influenza should be high on their list of possible diagnoses for ill patients, because influenza activity is elevated nationwide, and 2) to advise clinicians that all hospitalized patients and all high-risk patients (either hospitalized or outpatient) with suspected influenza should be treated as soon as possible with one of three available influenza antiviral medications. This should be done without waiting for confirmatory influenza testing. While antiviral drugs work best when given early, therapeutic benefit has been observed even when treatment is initiated later.

CDC Antiviral Recommendations for the 2014-2015 Season: CDC recommends antiviral medications for treatment of influenza as an important adjunct to annual influenza vaccination. Treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors has been shown to have clinical and public health benefit in reducing illness and severe outcomes of influenza, as evidenced from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, and observational studies of oral oseltamivir, inhaled zanamivir, or parenteral peramivir treatment during past influenza seasons and during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

All Hospitalized, Severely Ill, and High Risk Patients with Suspected Influenza Should Be Treated with Antivirals: Any patient with suspected or confirmed influenza in the following categories should be treated with a neuraminidase inhibitor:

1) Is hospitalized – treatment is recommended for all hospitalized patients

2) Has severe, complicated, or progressive illness – this may include outpatients with severe or prolonged progressive symptoms or who develop complications such as pneumonia

3) Is at higher risk for influenza complications (hospitalized or outpatient) – patients in this group include:

  • children younger than 2 years (although all children younger than 5 years are considered at higher risk for complications from influenza, the highest risk is for those younger than 2 years);
  • adults aged 65 years and older;
  • persons with chronic pulmonary (including asthma), cardiovascular (except hypertension alone), renal, hepatic, hematological (including sickle cell disease), and metabolic disorders (including diabetes mellitus), or neurologic and neurodevelopment conditions (including disorders of the brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerve, and muscle such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy [seizure disorders], stroke, intellectual disability [mental retardation], moderate to severe developmental delay, muscular dystrophy, or spinal cord injury);\persons with immunosuppression, including that caused by medications or by HIV infection;
  • women who are pregnant or postpartum (within 2 weeks after delivery);
  • persons aged younger than 19 years who are receiving long-term aspirin therapy;
  • American Indians/Alaska Natives;
  • persons who are morbidly obese (i.e., body-mass index is equal to or greater than 40); and
  • residents of nursing homes and other chronic-care facilities.

Timing of Treatment and Implications for Patient Evaluation, Treatment and Testing: Clinical benefit is greatest when antiviral treatment is administered early in the illness course. When indicated, antiviral treatment should be started as soon as possible after illness onset and should not be delayed even for a few hours to wait for the results of testing. Ideally, treatment should be initiated within 48 hours of symptom onset. However, antiviral treatment initiated later than 48 hours after illness onset can still be beneficial for some patients. Observational studies of hospitalized patients suggest that while the greatest benefit occurs when antiviral treatment is initiated within 48 hours of illness onset, treatment might still be beneficial when initiated up to 4 or 5 days after symptom onset. Also, a randomized placebo controlled study suggested clinical benefit when oseltamivir was initiated 72 hours after illness onset among febrile children with uncomplicated influenza. Clinical judgment, on the basis of the patient’s disease severity and progression, age, underlying medical conditions, likelihood of influenza, and time since onset of symptoms, is important when making antiviral treatment decisions for outpatients.

Because of the importance of early treatment, decisions about starting antiviral treatment should not wait for laboratory confirmation of influenza. Therefore, treatment should generally be initiated empirically. During influenza season especially, health care providers should advise high risk patients to call their provider promptly if they have symptoms of influenza. It may be useful for providers to implement phone triage lines to enable high risk patients to discuss symptoms over the phone. To facilitate early initiation of treatment, when feasible, an antiviral prescription can be provided without testing and before an office visit.

The results of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs; immunoassays that can identify the presence of influenza A and B viral nucleoprotein antigens in respiratory specimens) may not be accurate; test sensitivities are approximately 50-70% when compared with viral culture or reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Clinicians should realize that a negative RIDT result does not exclude a diagnosis of influenza in a patient with suspected influenza. Other factors such as the quality of the specimen and timing of specimen collection may also affect test results. Rapid molecular assays are a new type of molecular influenza diagnostic test (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/molecular-assays.htm). Molecular testing is not needed for all patients with suspected influenza, but is most appropriate for hospitalized patients if a test result would lead to a change in clinical management.

Antivirals in Non-High Risk Patients with Uncomplicated Influenza: Neuraminidase inhibitors can benefit other individuals with influenza. While current guidance focuses treatment on those with severe illness or at high risk of complications from influenza, antiviral treatment may be prescribed on the basis of clinical judgment for any previously healthy (non-high risk) outpatient with suspected or confirmed influenza. Neuraminidase inhibitors reduce the duration of symptoms by ~1 day in healthy persons with uncomplicated influenza.

For previously healthy, symptomatic outpatients, if treatment is given, it is recommended that treatment be initiated within 48 hours of illness onset, although it is possible that treatment started after 48 hours may offer some benefit.

Antiviral Medications: Three prescription neuraminidase inhibitor antiviral medications are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are recommended for use in the United States during the 2014-2015 influenza season: oseltamivir (Tamiflu®), zanamivir (Relenza®), and peramivir (Rapivab®).

  • Oral oseltamivir is FDA-approved for treatment of influenza in persons aged 2 weeks and older, and for chemoprophylaxis to prevent influenza in people 1 year of age and older. Although not part of the FDA-approved indications, use of oral oseltamivir for treatment of influenza in infants younger than 14 days old, and for chemoprophylaxis in infants 3 months to 1 year of age, is recommended by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Due to limited data, use of oseltamivir for chemoprophylaxis is not recommended in children younger than 3 months unless the situation is judged critical.
  • Inhaled zanamivir is FDA-approved for treatment of persons 7 years and older and for prevention of influenza in persons 5 years and older.
  • Intravenous peramivir was approved on December 19, 2014, for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in persons 18 years and older. An FDA press release related to this announcement is available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm427755.htm.
  • Adamantanes (rimantadine and amantadine) are not currently recommended for treatment or prevention of influenza because of high levels of resistance among circulating influenza A viruses.

There are no current national shortages of neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir). However, local spot shortages have been reported for some formulations. Therefore, it may be necessary to contact more than one pharmacy to fill a prescription for an antiviral medication.

If there is difficulty locating commercial Tamiflu® for Oral Suspension, oral suspension can be compounded by a pharmacy from oseltamivir capsules. However, this compounded suspension should not be used for convenience or when the FDA-approved Tamiflu® for Oral Suspension is commercially available.

Please see information for health care professionals regarding compounding an oral suspension from oseltamivir 75 mg capsules at http://www.tamiflu.com/hcp/resources/hcp_resources_pharmacists.jsp.

Additional Considerations for Clinicians

Antibiotics are not effective against influenza infection, and early diagnosis of influenza can reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics. However, because certain bacterial infections can produce symptoms similar to influenza and bacterial infections can occur as a complication of influenza, bacterial infections should be considered and appropriately treated, if suspected. In addition, because pneumococcal infections are a serious complication of influenza infection, new pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults 65 years of age or older, as well as adults and children at increased risk for invasive pneumococcal disease due to chronic underlying medical conditions should be followed (see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pneumo/vac-PCV13-adults.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pneumo/vacc-in-short.htm for further information).

The most common adverse events associated with oral oseltamivir include a slightly increased risk of nausea and vomiting over placebo, with nausea occurring in 10% of adults with influenza who received oseltamivir and 6% of people who received placebo in controlled clinical trials (3% and 4%, respectively, in children), and vomiting occurring in 9% of adults with influenza who received oseltamivir and 3% of people who received placebo in controlled clinical trials (15% and 9%, respectively, in children). These symptoms are generally transient and can be mitigated if oseltamivir is taken with food. Adverse events for inhaled zanamivir were not increased over placebo in clinical trials, but cases of bronchospasm have been reported during postmarketing; inhaled zanamivir is not recommended for persons with underlying airways disease (e.g., asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases). For people who received peramivir intravenously or intramuscularly in clinical trials, the most common adverse event was diarrhea, occurring in 8% versus 7% in people who received placebo.

Resources for Patient Education: Results from unpublished CDC qualitative research shows that most people interviewed were not aware that drugs to treat influenza illness are available. Patients being provided a prescription for an influenza antiviral drug may have questions. A fact sheet for patients is available at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/antivirals/whatyoushould.htm.

Note the following important background information for patients:

  • If you get the flu, antiviral drugs are a treatment option.
  • It is very important that antiviral drugs are used early to treat hospitalized patients, people with severe flu illness, and people who are at high risk for flu complications because of their age, severity of illness, or underlying medical conditions.
  • If you have severe illness or are at high risk of serious flu complications, you may be treated with flu antiviral drugs if you get the flu.
  • For people with a high-risk condition, treatment with an antiviral drug can mean the difference between having milder illness instead of very serious illness that could result in a hospital stay.
  • Other people also may be treated with antiviral drugs by their doctor this season. Most otherwise-healthy people who get the flu, however, do not need to be treated with antiviral drugs.
  • Studies show that flu antiviral drugs work best for treatment when they are started within 2 days of getting sick. However, starting antivirals later can still be helpful for some people.
  • If your health care provider thinks you have the flu, your health care provider may prescribe antiviral drugs. A test for flu is not necessary.
  • Antibiotics are not effective against the flu. Using antibiotics inappropriately can lead to antibiotic resistance and may expose patients to unwanted side effects of the drug.
  • Other practices that may help decrease the spread of influenza include respiratory hygiene, cough etiquette, social distancing (e.g., staying home from work and school when ill, staying away from people who are sick) and hand washing.

 For more information:

 

Intrauterine Devices And Other Long-Acting Contraceptives Gaining Popularity

Though they continue to be overshadowed by less expensive, less effective birth control methods, long-acting reversible contraceptives such as intrauterine devices are gaining ground, according to an analysis of recently released federal data.

Nearly 12 percent of women who used contraceptives between 2011 and 2013 used IUDs or hormonal implants, according to a Guttmacher Institute analysis of data from the federal National Survey of Family Growth.

That made these long-acting products the third most popular form of reversible contraception, behind birth control pills (26 percent) and condoms (15 percent).

The use of long-acting forms of contraception has been increasing steadily, from 2.4 percent in 2002 to 8.5 percent in 2009, according to Guttmacher.

Long-acting contraceptives don’t require women to remember to use birth control every day or whenever they have sex. That makes them one of the most effective forms of contraception, preventing pregnancy in more than 99 percent of cases. IUDs last for up to 12 years, depending on the type, while hormonal implants protect against pregnancy for up to three years.

In recent years, pharmaceutical companies have been marketing long-acting products directly to women, raising awareness among patients.

In addition, influential organizations such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics have in recent years designated such  products as first-line choices for birth control.

Cost has always been one of the barriers. With a price tag for an IUD of several hundred dollars, many women opted instead for methods that didn’t require such high up-front spending, even though over time IUDs and implants may be less expensive than shorter term methods.

Cost should no longer be a barrier for most women. The health law requires that most health plans provide all FDA-approved contraceptives to women without requiring any out-of-pocket payments. The provision generally took effect in 2013, so the impact of the law’s requirements isn’t reflected to any large degree in the study’s figures, says Kavanaugh.

Over time, however, researchers expect the health law’s coverage requirements to boost the use of long-acting contraceptives, she says.

Please contact Kaiser Health News to send comments or ideas for future topics for the Insuring Your Health column.

mandrews4@nyc.rr.com

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Rural Doctor Launches Startup To Ease Pain Of Dying Patients

Dr. Michael Fratkin is getting a ride to work today from a friend.

“It’s an old plane. Her name’s ‘Thumper,’” says pilot Mark Harris, as he revs the engine of the tiny 1957 Cessna 182.

Fratkin is an internist and specialist in palliative medicine. He’s the guy who comes in when the cancer doctors first deliver a serious diagnosis.

He manages medications to control symptoms like pain, nausea and breathlessness. And he helps people manage their fears about dying, and make choices about what treatments they’re willing — and not willing — to undergo.

In rural Humboldt County, in the far northern reaches of California, Fratkin is essentially the only doctor in a 120-mile stretch who does what he does.

“There’s very little sophisticated understanding of the kinds of skills that really matter for people at the very end,” he says.

It takes 30 minutes to fly from Eureka, Calif., to the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. On this trip, Fratkin is going to visit a man named Paul James, who is dying of liver cancer.

“A good number of patients in my practice are cared for in communities that have no access to hospice services,” Fratkin says.

The plane touches down on a narrow landing strip. A loose horse runs next to the plane as we taxi down the runway.

Fratkin is here to make a rare house call. He met Paul and his wife, Cessie Abbott, at the hospital in Eureka. But the two-hour drive is too far for them to make often, so Fratkin comes to them.

It’s a visit that Cessie, in particular, has been waiting for. She and her husband know he’s dying. But it’s hard for them to talk to each other about it.

“Dr. Fratkin has kind of been my angel,” she says. Fratkin gets her husband to open up, she says, and reveal things he might not otherwise, because Paul’s “trying to be strong for us, I think.”

Cessie tells Fratkin that the pain in Paul’s belly has been getting worse.

“He’s moaning in his sleep now,” she says.

“Have you ever taken morphine tablets?” Fratkin asks Paul. Cessie explains that those tablets didn’t work for her husband. “Have you ever taken methadone?” Fratkin asks him. “We’re going to add a medicine that is long-acting.”

Fratkin believes there should be a spiritual component of these discussions, too.

“Yeah, Paul, there’s more to you than this body of yours, isn’t there?” he says, a refrain he repeats with almost all his patients.

“Oh yeah,” Paul says, and then goes quiet for a bit. He’s Yurok, and talks about how happy he is when he’s in the mountains, hunting with his grandsons.

Cessie says she can hear Paul praying when he’s alone in the bathroom. So Fratkin asks him to light some Indian root and say a prayer now.

“Great spirit, that created this earth …,” Paul begins, his eyes clenched shut.

By the time Fratkin leaves the Hoopa Valley, he’s spent half a day with one patient. This is something the hospital in Eureka just couldn’t afford to have him do.

Fratkin says he was under constant pressure to see patient after patient to meet the hospital’s billing quotas.

“It’s very hard for one doctor to manage the complexity of each individual patient and to crank it out in any way that generates productive revenue,” he says.

Fratkin decided he couldn’t, within the hospital system, easily provide the kind of palliative care he sees as his calling. So he decided to quit — and launch a startup.

“I had to sort out an out-of-the-box solution,” he says.

He calls his new company ResolutionCare. There’s no office, no clinic. Instead he wants to put the money for those resources into hiring a team of people who can travel and make house calls, so that very ill patients don’t have to get to the doctor’s office. When time is stretched, he plans to use video conferencing.

The key challenge is financing his big idea. Government programs like Medicare and Medicaid don’t pay for video sessions when the patient is at home. And they pay poorly for home visits.

So far, Fratkin has been cultivating private donors and is looking for foundation grants. He’s arranged an independent contract to sell his services back to the hospital he recently left. And he’s launched a crowdfunding campaign to back the training he’d like to do for other doctors of palliative medicine who practice in rural areas.

Down the line, Fratkin is even thinking of asking some of his more well-off patients to pay out-of-pocket for his services.

When he gets back to Eureka, after the visit with Paul James, Fratkin hops in his blue Prius and drives 30 minutes north to see Mary Maloney. She’s dying of esophageal cancer. She tried radiation and chemo for a while, but both made her feel awful. Fratkin was the one who told her it was OK to stop treatment.

“I mean, I love life,” Maloney says from the recliner in her home in Blue Lake. “I don’t want to let it go. But I don’t know if I’m willing enough to put myself through all the things I’d have to put myself through.”

Fratkin says he’s treated more than a thousand patients and, like other entrepreneurs with big ideas, thinks his startup could change the world. He knows he’s up against tough odds though — most startups don’t succeed.

Not long after Fratkin’s visit to the Hoopa Valley, Paul James passed away. We thank the family for sharing their story. This story is part of a reporting partnership that includes KQED, NPR and Kaiser Health News.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.