Supreme Court Ruling Sets Stage for Full
Rollout of Health-Care Reform Law
As
various provisions are implemented, more than 30 million uninsured will get
coverage
The U.S.
Supreme Court's long-awaited ruling on last Thursday upholding the
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act means that changes to the American
health care system will roll out largely as planned when the bill was signed
into law two years ago, experts say.
"The
opinion cleared the way for implementation to proceed," said Karen
Pollitz, senior fellow with the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C.
Perhaps
the biggest impact of the law will be the decrease in the number of people who
are uninsured or underinsured. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates
that the rolls of the uninsured will go down by 30 million to 33 million people
by 2016, leaving 26 million or 27 million people uninsured, a 50 percent
reduction.
The
increase in the number of people covered by health insurance comes via several
different provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The most contested and
controversial of those provisions is the so-called individual mandate, which
requires all adults to obtain health insurance or face a penalty.
Surprising
some legal scholars, the Supreme Court upheld this part of the law, as a tax,
and it will now go into effect in 2014.
That
means the earliest the U.S. Internal Revenue Service could levy fines would be
in 2015, said Linda Fentiman, James D. Hopkins Professor at Pace University Law
School in White Plains, N.Y.
But in
truth, 90 percent or more of Americans won't ever feel the pinch of the penalty
either because they're already covered or they're exempt, Pollitz said.
The
Supreme Court decision also means that other provisions in the law -- the most
significant legislative achievement of President Barack Obama's administration
-- will be allowed to remain in place.
For
instance, young adults can still be covered under their parents' insurance
plans.
"[This
allows] the 2.5 million young adults up to the age of 26 who gained coverage
under the law to stay on their parents' health insurance policies," Dr.
Jeremy Lazarus, president of the American Medical Association, said in a
statement.
Many
other Americans will be able to get health coverage through subsidized health
insurance exchanges. And insurance companies can no longer exclude people from
plans because of preexisting conditions.
This
provision is already in place for children and will be applicable to adults
starting in 2014, said Dr. Michelle Huckaby Lewis, a research scholar with
Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics in Baltimore.
The law
will also preserve discounts that Medicare recipients (generally people over
the age of 65) receive on prescription drugs, Joe Baker, president of the
Medicare Rights Center, said in a statement.
And, in
general, the expanded health coverage will boost preventive services such as
mammograms and colonoscopies.
Insurance
companies will now be required to provide "first dollar" coverage for
preventive and screening services, explained Dr. Glen Stream, president of the
American Academy of Family Physicians. Stream said he has seen many patients
decline a mammogram or a colonoscopy because the co-pay or deductible was
simply too expensive.
"It
was not at all uncommon to decline important wellness and preventive screening
because they couldn't afford the co-pay or the deductible," Stream said.
"Now, the whole cost of a mammogram is covered because it fits into this
category of preventive screening services."
The only
part of the Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court took issue with was
penalizing states that didn't expand their Medicaid programs.
"The
court said the federal government does not have the power to penalize states
who decline to expand their Medicaid programs," said Devon Herrick, a
health economist and senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis
in Dallas.
It's
unclear whether states will decide to pursue Medicaid expansion or not, but
this part of the ruling could affect the poor.
Lewis
explained that prior to the Supreme Court's decision, "the Affordable Care
Act would have required that states expand Medicaid programs by 2014 to cover
all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes below 133 percent of the
federal poverty level."
The
federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost of expanded coverage
through 2016, with the states assuming a small portion after that.
"This
expansion of Medicaid would have done a great deal to eliminate much of the
state-by-state variation we currently see in [the coverage of the] poor, but
after [Thursday's] ruling, states may decline to participate in Medicaid
expansion," Lewis said. "This would no longer eliminate disparities
in coverage in the very poor from state-to-state."
On the
other hand, Herrick noted, because Medicaid reimbursement rates run an average
of only 59 percent of what private insurers pay, doctors may opt out of
covering these people.
"If
we have 16 or 17 million more people on Medicaid and doctors are saying they
don't want to take Medicaid enrollees, that's not good," Herrick said.
"We're afraid that could drive up emergency room visits."
And
requirements that employers with 50 or more employees provide health benefits
may mean a squashing of cash raises, he added.
Regardless
of the perceived pluses and minuses, the Supreme Court's ruling does mean that
many people are letting out a long sigh of relief.
"At
least now we have some certainty about how we're going forward," said
Stream. "We can work to implement those components of health care reform
that are already underway that we think are in the best interest of patients...
Even the strongest advocates wouldn't claim it to be perfect."
Thomas
Oliver, a professor of population health sciences at the University of
Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, added: "This gives us the
chance to fight our way to the finish line, but it's still a tough several
miles ahead. What we have now is a stronger set of resources, and a set of
guidelines and rules so that individuals and companies and health care
organizations and insurance companies are not out there on their own."
But a
fight to the finish line may be inevitable. Republicans and likely GOP
presidential nominee Mitt Romney have vowed to repeal the controversial law --
when, and if, they get the necessary votes.
More
information
(SOURCES:
Glen Stream, M.D., president, American Academy of Family Physicians; Michelle
Huckaby Lewis, M.D., J.D., research scholar, Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of
Bioethics, Baltimore; Karen Pollitz, senior fellow, Kaiser Family Foundation,
Washington, D.C.; Linda C. Fentiman, J.D., James D. Hopkins Professor, Pace
University Law School, White Plains, N.Y.; Devon Herrick, health economist and
senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas; Thomas R. Oliver,
Ph.D., professor, population health sciences, University of Wisconsin School of
Medicine and Public Health, Madison; statement by Joe Baker, president,
Medicare Rights Center; statement of Jeremy Lazarus, M.D., president, American
Medical Association)
No comments:
Post a Comment