Tag Archives: ObamaCare

Affordable Care Act, In the Courtroom

How About Health Courts?

Leave a comment

One of the goals of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare”, is to decrease the cost of health care. It is believed that some of these costs are related to medical malpractice; these costs are driven by high malpractice insurance premiums that health care providers must buy and the unnecessary tests and procedures that are done in a “defensive” manner to better help in defending a future, potential, negligence claim.

Recognizing these costs, the Affordable Care Act allows for the award of five-year demonstration grants which will be awarded to the States to set up new methods of medical malpractice resolution. The plans should be designed to cut the costs associated with the current medical malpractice tort litigation and hopefully, allow the providers to stop practicing “defensive medicine.” These grants were to be appropriated starting in fiscal year 2011. To my knowledge, this has not yet occurred.

America’s current system of dealing with the tort of medical malpractice is woefully inefficient and costly. Juries often find it difficult in differentiating victims of malpractice from those who have suffered from an unavoidable outcome and the jury may fail in reaching reasonable awards for those who are injured.

Only two percent of patients injured by negligent care in a hospital ever file a malpractice claim (New England Journal of Medicine vol. 324, 1991 (370-6). The elderly and the poor are even less likely to sue (Medical Error: What do we know? What do we do? Jossey-Bass, 2002). For providers, going to trial can be a risky endeavor as you never know what a jury will do.

In Tennessee, for example, heart surgeons are sued for malpractice on the average of once every three years. One case where I was a named defendant occurred in 1996. The case finally went to trial with a defendant verdict in 2013. In this case, the first judge died and a second judge recused herself since she knew one of the defendants. So much for the concept of a speedy trial as a Constitutional right.

Because of the noted shortcomings of the present system, there have been proposals in the United States Congress, both in the House and Senate, to allocate money to the States to experiment with “Health Courts” and other alternatives to the present system of litigation, for resolving medical malpractice suits.  These courts did not get any traction in the past but they are now being restudied under the goals of the Affordable Care Act.

The proposed Health Court system will probably have a liberalized standard for negligence; a mistake or medical treatment falling outside a range of good practice will be compensable. The plaintiff will no longer have the burden of persuasion to show personal fault on the part of the defendant.

The Health Courts will be designed to expedite proceedings and improve patient access to the system. There will probably be limits on non-economic damages which will be based on the severity of injury. Damages will be set by an independent commission created by the State.

Under current models, the Health Courts will have public reporting of all cases settled or adjudicated. This would be a means for setting precedent for other courts dealing with similar fact patterns. There may even be a centralized reporting system so that there could be a uniformity of awards among all of the states.

What about the constitutional right to a jury trial? The Seventh Amendment states in part, “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…” The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit Congress or the States from creating new compensation rights or eliminating claims that were recognized by common law so long as any changes were part of a comprehensive administrative scheme that provides benefits for the claimant. New York Central Railroad v. White 243 U.S. 188, 200 (1917).

Based on the previous model formed by the Congress, the Health Court system would probably require an initial review of the claim by a Health Court Review Board. If the Board concludes that the injury was clearly due to malpractice, a payment would be made based on a published schedule of benefits. These claims would have expedited payments since they would fit the definition of an Accelerated Compensation Event (ACE). Examples of an ACE would be giving a drug to a patient who is known to be allergic to the drug, amputating or otherwise operating on the wrong extremity, or unintentionally leaving a foreign body inside a patient who has been operated on.

If the Board is certain that the claim was not due to malpractice or the injury was too small to justify an award, they can dismiss the suit.

For cases that are not clear, a Health Court trial would be the next step in the process. These trials, based on previous models, would be presided over by “specially qualified judges” with a background in science or medicine. The models previously discussed do not require the judge to have any legal training but this may change during administrative clarifications.

I am not sure how the judges would be picked for this system, but there was a plan put forth previously by the Progressive Policy Institute which would have the judges appointed by the governors of the States. These judges would have to have a background in science and/or medicine. It was not defined how much science (hard or social) would be required or how much medical knowledge. It was also not clear if the judge would need to be a medical doctor. Would nurses and PhD’s be allowed?

The Health Courts would have power to hire their own experts to help explain the issues relating to standards of care and causation. Lawyers could be present during the proceedings but there would be no juries

The hired expert witnesses would be tasked to help the judges make binding determinations as to standards of care, causation, compensation, and related issues such as comparative fault. The expert would be considered as neutral as to the case outcome.

It is foreseeable that there will be a new legal standard as to what constitutes an injury. An “injury” will be the result of a mistake that should have been prevented. An injury would not occur if “optimal” care had been given. This is known as the “avoidability standard”. This standard is more liberal than negligence but not as severe as the “no fault” standard. Plaintiff will no longer need to prove that the defendant breached the standard of care by acting negligently. He will only need to prove that optimal care was not given; a much easier standard to prove.

If liability is found, damages would need to be set. In the previous models, the damages were to be set by a schedule of benefits derived from a consensus process involving research into similar benefit schedules in the United States and abroad. The schedule would cover both economic and non-economic damages.

Non-economic damages would be listed in a tiered system based on severity of injury. The damage schedule would be adjusted annually on the federal level and then used by the state health courts. The overall goal of the system will be to reduce health costs by reducing liability payments and the malpractice costs of providers.

The benefits of the proposed Health Court system would be (1) quicker and more reliable justice; (2) improved patient safety; (3) lower overall costs; (4) allow for the patient to have a more trusting and open relationship with physicians and other health care providers; and (5) a liberalized compensation scheme to cover avoidable injuries without the requirement of proving negligence. (Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons, May 2006).

The Health Court system seems like a reasonable idea to bring more fairness to compensating patients who have been injured by health care providers. Physicians like the system; insurance companies like it; Republicans like it; the Institute of Medicine likes it.

Lawyers hate it! In fact, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted a resolution opposing the creation of Health Courts in 2006. The resolution stated that the ABA has “a strong history of firmly supporting the integrity of the jury system, the independence of the judiciary and the right of consumers to receive full compensation for their injuries, without arbitrary caps on damages.”[1]

It is not clear what the role of the National Practitioner Data Bank will be, especially as it relates to payments not due to medical malpractice.

I am not very good at predicting the future, but I know that physicians will need to understand what is going on in the medical malpractice arena so they can better participate in the decision making process. It will be interesting to learn what the states will do with this grant money being provided under the Affordable Care Act.

[1] Janice Mulligan, Chair of Standing Committee on Medical Professional Liability, 2006.

darrylweiman

MORE ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Darryl Weiman is a featured expert in www.healthcaredive.com on February 17, 2016. 

Affordable Care Act

Closure of a State Exchange

Leave a comment

One of the linchpins of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)[1] was to have health care insurance available for everyone. States were to form health care exchanges whereby people could shop for a suitable health care policy that fit their needs and still meet the requirements of the Act. If a state were to opt out of making an exchange, the Federal government would have a fall back exchange which could be used instead. The Federal government could not force the states to set up exchanges because that would violate rules of Federalism and the separation of powers.

In an effort to have the state’s set up the exchanges, the Act, in its original form, would only allow premium subsidies for those people who bought their health insurance on a state exchange. Surprisingly, only 17 states set up an exchange and 7 states developed a partnership exchange with the federal government; the other states opted to use the Federal exchange. The Federal government preferred the states to set up their own exchanges because the requirements of health insurance were under the powers relegated to the states. Each state would be in the best position to decide which policies would meet that particular state’s requirements.

Obamacare became a heated political issue and it was finally passed by Congress in 2010 with no votes from the republican side.  President Obama signed it into law.

Kentucky was one of the states that set up its own exchange. After the passage of Obamacare, Matt Bevin, the republican candidate for governor of Kentucky was able to win relying on a platform to do away with the ACA.

It is no surprise that Governor Bevin decided to close the Kentucky state run health care exchange “Kynect.” This exchange had originally been formed under the leadership of Steve Beshear, a democratic governor.

Governor Bevin felt that Kynect was wasteful spending since the Federal exchange could be used with relatively low costs to the state. With the recent Supreme Court decision of King v. Burwell, there would really be no penalty to Kentuckians who would still be eligible for premium support from the federal government. After all, Burwell held that state and federal health insurance exchanges were the same as far as health insurance premium support was concerned.

With the closure of this exchange, about 100,000 Kentuckians with private health insurance will now need to reapply for insurance through the Federal insurance exchange. This application can be long and difficult. There are more plans to choose from and the premiums vary considerably. Some people may opt out of getting health insurance altogether. They may have to pay a penalty (a tax) by being without insurance, but this tax will likely be less than the premium costs, anyway. Also, insurance can be bought at any time (guaranteed issue) and there is no penalty for waiting until you get sick (community rating).

It is likely that many of the 100,000 will hold off on redoing their health insurance until they need it. If relatively healthy people opt out of buying health insurance, this will put pressure on the insurance companies who rely on healthy patients to pay premiums and then don’t use the policy since they are in good shape. If insurance companies start to lose money, they may opt out of participating in the health insurance business of that state.

Here is some historical perspective. Kentucky was one of the first states to implement guaranteed issue and community rating in the 1990’s. Premiums kept rising as the insurance companies tried to stay solvent. Between 1994 and 1997, forty-five insurance companies left Kentucky because of rising losses.[2]

Several health insurers have been struggling under the Affordable Care Act. The nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group warned that they may have to pull out of the exchanges by the end of 2016.  Tenet Healthcare, HCA Holding, Aetna, and Anthem are also struggling.[3]

There are several issues that will need to be addressed if Kentucky does close the state exchange. The state will first need to meet the obligations of the exchange through the end of 2016. Insurance companies who have participated thru the state exchange will then need to transition to the Federal exchange. Will these companies be willing to meet the requirements of the Federal exchange if they are significantly different from the requirements of the state? If the insurers are losing money, they are unlikely to stay in the business.

Is this closure of the state exchange just political posturing on the part of the republican governor who is trying to fulfill political promises? After all, there will be significant costs to the state and potentially to the citizens caught up in the transition.

The state will have to pay a 3% fee on insurance costs for the residents who use the Federal exchange. The state will also be at risk of losing $58 million of the federal grants it received for setting up the original state exchange.

Kentucky will still have to manage Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). These programs had originally been tied in to the state private insurance exchange; this uncoupling will likely result in some administrative costs to the state. Will the Feds cut back on the support of Medicaid and CHIP that they presently send to the state as a means to penalize the state for abandoning the state exchange?

Bevin’s approach to Medicaid will be different with the new system. Bevin says the state will still cover those whose income is up to 138% of the poverty level but there will likely be a decrease in benefits for those at or below the poverty line who do not pay Medicaid premiums. Bevin wants to model the Kentucky program after the Indiana program where people who do pay Medicaid premiums will get a better benefits package. It is uncertain as to how this will play out with the electorate.

There are some unknown unknowns that Bevin may have to deal with. Since King v. Burwell[4] showed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) controls the premium support available to the citizens, can the IRS financially punish the citizens of Kentucky to such a degree that Mr. Bevin will be forced to abandon his plans? I would not be surprised if pressure is brought to bear and Mr. Bevin may be forced to back off.  I don’t think any significant changes to Obamacare will occur until there is a new President and I don’t think the present executive will sit idly by while there is an attempt to close the Kentucky exchange.

[1] Commonly referred to as “Obamacare:.

[2] Conrad F. Meier, “Destroying Insurance Markets: How Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating Destroyed the Individual Health Insurance Market in Eight States,” The Council for Affordable Health Insurance and the Heartland Institute, 2005; http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/

[3] Nathan Bomey and Jayne O’Donnell, USA Today, November 20, 2015.

[4] King v. Burwell, 576 U.S._(2015).

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Darryl Weiman is a featured expert in www.healthcaredive.com on February 17, 2016. 

Affordable Care Act

Retirement Looks Good About Now

1 Comment

With all of the new requirements for practicing medicine under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), retirement for those who can do it looks like a pretty reasonable option. Unfortunately, there is a clause under the Act that may take this option off of the table. Section 5210  Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps, amends Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) such that there will now be a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

Physicians have always been subject to a draft during times of war. This new law now makes them subject to a draft during any national emergency. It is not clear under the law as to what would constitute a “national emergency,” but Section 203(c)(2)(D) states that the Ready Reserve Corps “be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities …to improve access to health services.”

Physicians are the “ready reserve corps”. Not much has been written in the news media about this small section of the Affordable Care Act, but as a physician looking forward to retirement, it is of concern. In fact, the law specifically states that this reserve force must be able to respond on short notice and may even have to serve “involuntarily.” [1] Does this mean that they can keep me from retiring and put me in a medically underserved community which may need a cardiothoracic surgeon? The way I read the law, the answer is “yes.”

The uses of this Ready Reserve Corps would be to “ (A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps; (B) be available and ready for involuntary (emphasis added) calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel; (C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and (D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved (emphasis added) communities …to improve access to health services.”

On July 2, 2008, President Obama stated that “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Could the Affordable Care Act be the first legislation used in setting up this new national security force and will the physicians so drafted be the spear-head of this force? Why should a civilian national security force need to be just as powerful as our military? Why does it need to be as well-funded? Will this force be armed with military style weapons? This seems to be overkill to me but there is not much on the internet or in the main stream media to help discern the role of this force.

Would this new force be constitutional? The ACA funds it and the Commissioned officers of the ready reserve are to be appointed by the President. This would be different than the commissioned officers of the regular corps which are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate emphasis added. Why no requirement for the advice and consent of the Senate for the officers of the ready reserve corps? I don’t know but I am worried. Who will the president appoint? What kind of power will these officers have? Will it be the same type of power as the regular corps or will there be differences? Where will the checks and balances be if the Senate has no role in deciding who these officers will be; this is very different from the requirements of the other uniformed services. Why the difference? Will this force only be answerable to the President?

Nancy Pelosi infamously stated that we would have to pass the Affordable Care Act in order to find out what was in it. What she has stated has now come to pass.

Sections of the ACA that I thought were clearly unconstitutional have passed Supreme Court scrutiny. First, mandating the purchase of health care insurance was deemed to be a proper exercise of the taxing power of the United States.[2] Originally, President Obama stated that this power was allowed under the Commerce Clause and it was not (emphasis added) a tax.  Justice Roberts stated the opposite in his opinion. The mandate was not allowed under the Commerce Clause but it is allowed as a tax. Oh, well.

The other Supreme Court decision that I was way off on was the case of King v. Burwell.[3] Originally, the ACA would only allow tax credits for those who used exchanges that had been set up by the States. When States did not set up an exchange, then the Federal government would set one up but the people in those states would not be given any tax credits which were intended to help pay the premiums for the health insurance. The intent of the Congress was to get the States to buy into Obamacare but many of the states chose not to do this.

Despite the clear language of the statute, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the White House, started giving tax credits to everyone, even to those in States that had not set up an exchange. The Executive Branch is supposed to enforce the law, not change it. When this issue made it to the Supreme Court, the Court decided to repair the law. Since the Judicial branch is supposed to state what the law is, it seems like the Court was overstepping its authority when they essentially changed the law such that State exchanges really meant State and Federal exchanges.

By its decision, the Court essentially gave the Internal Revenue Service the authority to spend billions of dollars on tax credits for those using the federal Exchanges. The power of the purse, I thought, was to be invested to the legislature, not the Court. Boy, was I wrong.

It is said that the Supreme Court is not last because it is right, it is right because it is last. There must be finality in the law or we will have a society in disarray. Asking me to make a prediction as to a law’s constitutionality would not be a good idea; I am often wrong, especially as it relates to Obamacare.
[1] Section 203(c)(2)(B) of the Affordable Care Act.

[2] National Federation of Independent Business, et al., v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 648 F.3d 1235.

[3] King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 475 (2014).

darrylweiman

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Darryl Weiman is a featured expert in www.healthcaredive.com on February 17, 2016. 

Affordable Care Act

Is Health Care in America Really So Bad?

Leave a comment

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)[i]. The intent of the law was to provide health insurance to all Americans while, at the same time, lowering the health care costs for the people and the United States government.  Although it seems counterintuitive, President Obama promised that the plan would lower the cost of health insurance premiums while at the same time, reduce government spending. It is hard to see how this promise could have been sincere, especially since the plan would have added over 30 million patients into the mix.

I think most would agree that health care is expensive. In 2009, the United States spent 17.3 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP), about $2.5 trillion on health care. This was the most spent for health care by any country in the world. We also spend more than any other country on defense. I think both of these things are good. We should be spending on health care and defense to maintain our way of life which I believe is the best.

Proponents of Health Care change make claims that despite spending more on health care than other countries, the United States lags behind in critical health care measures such as life-expectancy and infant mortality. However, a critical look at these measures shows that the United States is really not so bad.

While it is true that life-expectancy in the United States is less than about 30 other countries, it is likely related to the high homicide rate in America along with the high death rate from auto accidents, both of which are much higher than those found in other Western countries. If we factor out homicides and auto accident fatalities, then the United States has the longest life-expectancy. Homicides and auto related deaths, while concerning, should not count on our quality of health care analysis.[ii]

Infant mortality is defined differently depending on the country. Since the definitions differ, it is not surprising that the rates differ. In America, a birth is counted as live if there is any sign of life, regardless of the birth weight or gestational age. This follows the World Health Organization (WHO) definition which defines a live birth as one where the infant, removed from the mother, “breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.”[iii]

In Switzerland, the baby must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as a live birth[iv]. Even if it’s breathing and the heart is beating, a subsequent death will not be counted as an infant mortality in that country if the baby is shorter than 30 centimeters.

In France, there must be a medical certificate stating that the baby was born alive and viable. Without that certificate, a subsequent death will not count as an infant mortality.  Also, in France and Belgium, babies born before twenty-six weeks are counted as deaths even if they fit the WHO criteria for live birth.[v] It’s obvious that using infant mortality rates as a measure of quality health care is a disingenuous argument for those claiming our health care system is not so good.

I believe that the cost of our health care is reasonable for what we get. It is the best health care in the world. Many of our treatments lead the way for both cure and palliation. Cancer treatments, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) care, and cardiac and vascular surgery advances are the best in the world. When Russian President Boris Yeltsin needed heart surgery, they sent for Dr. DeBakey’s team from Baylor in Houston.

It is not unusual for other world leaders to send their families or themselves to our country for their own care. When I was a resident at the University of Chicago, it was not unusual for world leaders to take over a hospital floor while they were cared for at that facility. I was even reprimanded by the United States Secret Service when I mistakenly entered the area during one of my rounds.

Former Vice-President Cheney had a left ventricular assist device keeping him alive for quite a while until he was able to get a match for a heart transplant. He spoke to one of our surgical societies where he described his course. He was doing great and I could not see any detrimental effects of his prolonged illness. This type of care is available to all in the United States!

As a Cardiothoracic surgeon, I am frequently exposed to dangerous blood borne infections such as Hepatitis C and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I was most fearful of Hepatitis C for which, until recently, there was no good treatment and the resulting death was from fulminant liver failure—not a pleasant way to go.

Now, there is a new drug, Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), to treat Hepatitis C and it is curative. It costs $80 thousand for a course of therapy but the illness would otherwise lead to death or to a liver transplant and further immunosuppressive drug therapy the costs of which would exceed the pills. It makes sense to use this new class of drugs but there is an on-going debate that the drug manufacturers are gouging the public. It is a breakthrough therapy where the developers are being chastised instead of honored. What a shame.

The high cost of drugs reminds me of when I was a young resident and surgeon. Tissue plasminogen activators (tPA) and other clot busters were being introduced as a way to treat patients with myocardial infarctions. The drug was expensive; over $2 thousand to save a heart attack victim. This was deemed exorbitant in the 1980’s. Now it is the standard of care and no one is complaining of the costs.

Drug companies spend millions of dollars on research and development of new therapies and they take a huge financial loss for the drugs that do not pan out. However, when they do have a success like with Hepatitis C, then I don’t have a problem with them charging high rates. This sends the right message to those involved in research and development that what they are doing will be rewarded if they are successful. We want the researchers to be advancing the science of medicine and this is the way to do it.

New endovascular techniques are allowing high risk patients to undergo complex aortic repairs and even aortic valve replacements. These patients would not have tolerated the difficult open procedures that would have been required in the past. With new aortic valves and aortas, many of these otherwise healthy individuals may live for another 10 or 20 years and the lives will be meaningful. Who wouldn’t want that?

Mary Lasker has been quoted as saying, “if you think research is expensive, try disease.”[vi] Sure it’s expensive, but life and health are among the most precious things we have. Who wouldn’t spend what is necessary to save a loved one or themselves?

My grandparents used to tell us to get the best doctors if we were sick and the best lawyers if we were confronted with legal problems. You’re looking for the best return on your investment and there is nothing more important than your life and health. It is said that there are problems that money can solve and then there are real problems. Perhaps we are spending more on health care because we are getting the best health care. I am OK with that and I think that most Americans would agree with me.

[i] Often referred to as “ObamaCare”.

[ii] Glen Whitman, “Who’s Fooling Who? The World Health Organization’s Problematic Ranking of Health Care Systems,” CATO Institute, February 28, 2008.

[iii] Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Live Birth Definition.

[iv] David Hogberg, Ph.D., “Don’t Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others,” National Policy Analysis, July 2006.

[v] Bernadine Healy, “Behind the Baby Count.” US News and World Report, September 24, 2006.

[vi] Mary Lasker was a Health Activist and Philanthropist who raised funds for medical research. She helped found the Lasker Foundation. A Lasker Award is often a harbinger of the Nobel Prize as, at least 86 Lasker Award winners went on to win the Nobel Prize.

 

darrylweiman

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Darryl Weiman is a featured expert in www.healthcaredive.com on February 17, 2016.