The ACA Survives for Now, But We Still Don’t Have Real Healthcare Reform

Perhaps the best window to the top winners in the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act could be seen 200 miles up the road, on Wall Street.

Within minutes of the decision, health care industry stocks were soaring, led by hospital and insurance corporations.

HCA, the biggest U.S. hospital chain, stock immediately jumped 9 percent.  Stock for another giant for-profit hospital chain Tenet Healthcare rose 6 percent. Health insurance stocks were also booming for corporate giants Aetna, Cigna, and Anthem.

The bubbly reaction by the traders was a punctuation mark for the most quoted phrase from Chief Justice John Roberts’ 6-3 majority decision, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”

The Court ruling does provide a reprieve for several million low and moderate-income people who depend on federal tax subsidies to buy private health insurance, as now required by the ACA.

Yet, as Roberts signaled, the decision is ultimately a reminder that the ACA, based on a model developed by corporate think tanks and a Massachusetts law enacted under former Republican governor Mitt Romney, has served first and foremost to further cement and expand the insurance-based private healthcare system in the U.S.

Following passage of the ACA, healthcare industry profits, which dipped during the 2008 Wall Street collapse, have soared to record levels.

The ACA mandated millions of new customers for the private insurance companies. With its financial incentives for electronic health records, the law encouraged a huge windfall for information technology firms. Added payments for drugs, and the refusal to allow the federal government to negotiate bulk discount rates from the pharmaceutical giants, encouraged accelerated drug profits.

And big hospital chains are also back making record profits, with the assist of more payments from insurers and the failure to set any real limits on hospital price gouging. In fact, the ACA encourages corporate consolidation that drives up prices.

Those are all the “markets” Chief Justice Roberts so adroitly noted the Act was intended to improve.

But in daily practice, the world nurses see every day at the bedside, the picture is decidedly mixed.

With its limits on disgraceful insurance restrictions, the ACA has certainly helped patients and families who were shut out by insurers for pre-existing conditions, dropped when they got sick, or financially devastated by caps on coverage.

Yet un-payable medical bills remain the leading cause of personal bankruptcy as the law’s failure to set meaningful cost controls still leaves far too many patients with bills they can not pay, or choosing to skip needed medical care because of the high cost.

In a comprehensive analysis on the eve of the Court ruling in Harpers magazine, Columbia Journalism Review contributing editor Trudy Lieberman aptly deconstructs “the failed promise of the Affordable Care Act.”

At the center of this huge shortfall is what Lieberman calls the “Great Cost Shift” – how the law promotes “the transfer of the growing price of medical care to patients themselves through high deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and limited provider networks,” especially by encouraging employers to offer scaled back or skeletal health coverage.

For patients sent into the ACA’s health exchanges, whether the state or federal versions, average deductibles, even in the least expensive bronze policies, are a whopping #5,181 for individuals and $10,545 for families.

Even for families on limited incomes who will, as a result of the Court ruling, still get the federal subsidies to buy the health plans in the first place, that math is daunting – one reason, Lieberman quotes an analyst noting we’re replacing the crisis of un-insurance with underinsurance, and a reason from a fourth to a third of people who signed up on the federal or state exchanges the first year have declined to renew.

The key point here, as Lieberman emphasizes, is the conservative ideological framework of market-based medical care, which undergirds the ACA. Without effective controls on profiteering and price gouging, the ACA and market solution for cost controls is, as one of her health policy experts Jonathan Oberlander of the University of North Carolina notes, “making sick people pay more.”

Ultimately, it means the ACA has helped a number of people get into a system that previously shut them out, but it has not come close to solving our long healthcare nightmare. And, by its structure, it never will.

America’s nurses have long campaigned for genuine, comprehensive health care reform, the fundamental idea, as most other industrialized countries have long held, that everyone should be guaranteed access to a single standard of safe therapeutic care.

Until we have a humane healthcare system in place that is not based on ability to pay, age, gender, ethnicity, or where you live, healthcare will continue to be a privilege, oriented to profits, not based on patient need.

That is precisely why nurses are continuing to campaign for expanding and updating Medicare to cover everyone.

July 30 marks the 50th anniversary of the enactment of Medicare, achieved against the considerable opposition of the healthcare industry (including one of their leading spokesmen, an actor named Ronald Reagan).

National Nurses United will be joining with labor, community, and healthcare activists across the country in events across the U.S., to mark the occasion, and remind us of the need to continue fighting for the real solution for healthcare reform. To join the actions, look for details at http://www.medicareturns50.org.

High Court’s Decision On Same Sex Marriage Expected To Boost Health Coverage Among Gay Couples

The right to marry in any state won’t be the only gain for gay couples from last week’s Supreme Court ruling. The decision will probably boost health insurance among gay couples as same-sex spouses get access to employer plans, say analysts and benefits consultants.

How much is unclear, but “it’s going to increase coverage” in a community that has often had trouble getting access to medical services, said Jennifer Kates, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

The logic is simple. Fewer than half of employers that offer health benefits make the insurance available to same-sex partners who aren’t married. Virtually all of them offer coverage to spouses.

By marrying partners with employer health plans, people in same-sex relationships are likely to get coverage in states that banned gay marriage until now as well as in those that welcomed it. Thanks to rapidly shifting legal ground, 37 states recognized gay marriage before last week’s ruling, up from nine in 2012.

New York legalized gay marriage in 2011. The next year there was a big increase in same-sex couples covered by employer-sponsored health insurance, according to a study published Friday by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Although the court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, lawyers gave mixed messages on whether employers must now offer health insurance to same-sex spouses if they offer it to opposite-sex spouses.

Edward Fensholt, a benefits lawyer with brokers Lockton Companies, expects most companies to cover same-sex spouses if they already offer benefits to opposite-sex spouses. But the decision does not require them to, he said.

“Employers get confused about this,” he said. “They’ll see that ruling and they’ll start to think they have to offer coverage to same-sex spouses.”

But Lambda Legal, which advocates for gay rights, said employers refusing to offer health insurance to all married couples would violate federal law prohibiting sex discrimination.

“You should be able to add your [same-sex] spouse to your health insurance,” Lamba Legal and other civil rights groups wrote in an online FAQ.

The court ruling, “coupled with existing federal protections, would set up a strong case that employers could not discriminate,” Kates said.

Also, state laws may require equal benefits for same-sex spouses.

Big companies also like the simplification the ruling brings to their human resources departments.

“We’re relieved because this basically means you won’t have to do a state-by-state analysis” of how the law applies to same-sex couples, said Gretchen Young, senior vice president of health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents very large employers. “We always want uniform treatment.”

Weirdly, a constitutional right to same-sex marriage may harm some same-sex couples: those with domestic-partner benefits who don’t want to get married.

Last year Verizon told same-sex partners in states where gay marriage is legal they had to wed if they wanted to qualify for benefits. Now that the high court has placed same-sex and opposite-sex marriage on the same level, other companies are likely to follow, say benefits specialists.

“We would certainly expect to see a falloff in domestic partner benefits,” said J.D. Piro, a health benefits lawyer with Aon Hewitt, a consulting firm. “Given the decision, employers might want to be asking, do we still need to do that?”

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