Tagged The Health Law

Obama Strikes Serious Tone As He Implores People To Sign Up For Health Law Coverage Before Deadline

“No jump shots. No ferns. No memes. Not this time. I’m going to give it to you straight: If you need health insurance for 2019, the deadline to get covered is December 15,” tweeted former President Barack Obama, who in the past has taken more light-hearted approaches. “Pass this on — you just might save a life.” Enrollment news comes out of Maryland and Georgia, as well.

Health Industry Groups: Congress Must Act To Protect Patients From Surprise Medical Billing

“When doctors, hospitals or care specialists choose not to participate in networks, or if they do not meet the standards for inclusion in a network, they charge whatever rates they like,” wrote the groups, which include powerful lobbyists like the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the National Business Group on Health, and the Consumers Union. “The consequence is millions of consumers receiving surprise, unexpected medical bills that can often break the bank.”

Need Health Insurance? The Deadline Is Dec. 15

The woman arrived at the University of South Florida’s navigator office in Tampa a few weeks ago with a 40-page document describing a short-term health insurance plan she was considering. She was uncomfortable with what the broker had said about the coverage, she told Jodi Ray, a health insurance navigator who helps people enroll in coverage, and she wanted help understanding it.

The document was confusing, according to Ray, who oversees Covering Florida, the state’s navigator program. It was hard to decipher which services would be covered.

“It was like a bunch of puzzle pieces,” she said.

Encouraged by her wife, the woman eventually opted instead for a marketplace plan with comprehensive benefits.

The annual open-enrollment period for people who buy their own insurance on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces ends Dec. 15 in most states. Enrollment in states that use the federal healthcare.gov platform has been sluggish this year compared to last. From Nov. 1 through Dec. 1, about 3.2 million people had chosen plans for 2019. Compared with the previous year, that’s about 400,000 fewer, or a drop of just over 11 percent.

The wider availability of short-term plans is one big change that has set this year’s apart from past sign-up periods.

Another is the elimination of the penalty for not having health insurance starting next year. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that as many as 3 million people who buy their own coverage may give it up when they don’t face a tax penalty.  But experts who have studied health insurance enrollment say that surveys so far indicate that the penalty hasn’t typically been the pivotal factor in people’s decision on whether to buy insurance.

They also caution against reading too much into the preliminary enrollment totals.

“There typically is a surge in enrollment at the end,” said Sabrina Corlette, research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “It’s hard to know whether it will make up for the shortfall.”

If they don’t pick a new plan, people who are enrolled in a 2018 marketplace plan may be automatically re-enrolled in their current plan or another one that is similar when the open-enrollment period ends. About a quarter of people who have marketplace plans are reassigned in this way.

Another factor that may be affecting enrollment is tighter federal funding for the health insurance navigators, like Jodi Ray in Tampa, who guide consumers through the complicated process. With fewer experts available to answer questions and help fill out the enrollment forms, consumers may fall through the cracks.

Across the country, funding for navigators dropped from $36 million in 2017 to $10 million this year. In Florida, federal funding for the Covering Florida navigator program was slashed to $1.25 million this year from $4.9 million last year, Ray said. The program was the only one to receive federal funding in the state this year.

The Covering Florida program reduced the number of open-enrollment navigators to 59 this year, a nearly 61 percent drop, Ray said. Navigators this year are available in only half of Florida counties; the organization is offering telephone assistance and virtual visits to people in counties where they can’t offer in-person help.

“It’s all we can do,” Ray said. So far, the group’s navigators have enrolled about half the number of people this year as they had last year.

It’s unclear the extent to which the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce health care costs by expanding access to short-term plans is affecting marketplace plan enrollment.

These plans, originally designed to cover people who expected to be out of an insurance plan for a short time, such as when they change jobs, can be less expensive. Unlike marketplace plans, short-term plans don’t have to provide comprehensive benefits or guarantee coverage for people who have preexisting medical conditions.

The Obama administration limited short-term plans to a three-month term. But in August, the federal government issued a rule that allowed their sale with initial terms of up to a year, and the option of renewal for up to three years.

Ten states either ban short-term plans or restrict them to terms of less than three months, said Sarah Lueck, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Many people are seemingly not focused on their options this open-enrollment season, however. According to a recent survey, about half of adults under age 65 who were uninsured or who buy their own coverage said they planned to buy a plan for 2019. But only 24 percent of people in that age group said they knew what the deadline was to enroll in health insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s November health tracking poll.

Must-Reads Of The Week On Health Care

Your regular Breeze correspondent, and its creator, Brianna Labuskes, is taking a break, but we didn’t want you to be without some semblance of a report today of things you don’t want to miss in health care.

So I’ll do my best at filling in. Be kind, and check back next week for the really good stuff.

One of the biggest bits of news this week was a coughed-up blot clot from the lung. Not sure why that seemed to fascinate people. We can skip that, but feel free to look.

The Atlantic: Doctors Aren’t Sure How This Even Came Out of a Patient

A more authentic bit of news was the report that health care spending slowed in 2017. It’s still growing, mind you, but growing more slowly. That’s not terribly surprising, because it has been slowing for a number of years. What Dan Diamond over at Politico calls “slowth.” It increased 3.9 percent to $3.5 trillion, while the year before it had grown 4.8 percent. Another way to look at it: Americans spend $10,739 per person on health care. HuffPost had a nice analysis:

HuffPost: America’s Health Care Spending Keeps Rising Really Slowly. Seriously.

Read the full report here.

The New York Times attempts to explain why enrollment in Obamacare is down. Any number of things could factor in, like higher employment at places that offer health insurance, no mandate forcing people to enroll or people signing up for Medicaid. Further study may present an answer.

The New York Times: Why Is Obamacare Enrollment Down?

This week, the Annals of Internal Medicine retracted a 2009 paper by Brian Wasinick, the now-discredited Cornell University researcher. The half-baked paper had claimed that the recipes in the more modern editions of the classic “Joy of Cooking” cookbook had more calories than the original. The always enlightening Retraction Watch website, which tracks medical and scientific research that has been undermined, has the whole story of the delightful sleuthing that led to the debunking. (And while you are on the site, peruse all the other Wasinick papers on food research that have been rescinded.)

Retraction Watch: The Joy of Cooking, Vindicated: Journal Retracts Two More Brian Wansink Papers

One of my favorite writers on health care makes an often overlooked point about health insurance: Its goal ought to be the same as other insurance, that is, to safeguard the financial health of beneficiaries. And Aaron Carroll, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, says that several studies show it does exactly that.

Read the whole piece for yourself:

JAMA Forum: Medicaid as a Safeguard for Financial Health

As a bonus on this topic, here is an academic paper surfacing this week on the effects of the Affordable Care Act on mortgage delinquencies. Spoiler: The value of fewer evictions and foreclosures is substantial compared to the cost of the ACA subsidies.

The Effect of Health Insurance on Home Payment Delinquency: Evidence from ACA Marketplace Subsidies

The Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that seeks to improve health care,  wanted to know how the Affordable Care Act affected the uninsured and the insured. As its chart that summarizes its findings issued this week shows, there was considerable movement. The main finding was the number of young adults who switched from Medicaid to individual insurance — and the other direction as well.

The Commonwealth Fund: Who Entered and Exited the Individual Health Insurance Market Before and After the Affordable Care Act?

Commonwealth also conducted a forum on “Being Seriously Ill in America,” which dealt with the financial consequences.

Forbes likes to compile those “30 under 30” lists. (I’ve long wished someone would go back and look at one of those lists from 20 or 25 years ago to see how the luminaries are doing now.) Anyway, it put together a list of people in the health care industry. Most are on the cusp of 30, which might tell you something about how hard it is to get a fast start in the industry. But one person on the honor roll is only 18. In case you were wondering, because I was, Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of the ill-fated Theranos, was on a different “40 under 40” Forbes list in 2014. We hope these folks fare better.

Forbes: 30 Under 30 in Healthcare

This article ran a while back, but I got a kick out of it and just had to mention it. It looked at prehistoric health care. Researchers will never know how much Stone Age dwellers bored their hut mates with discussions of a paleo diet, but they are learning how they performed medical procedures that appeared to have worked.

The Atlantic: Neanderthals Suffered a Lot of Traumatic Injuries. So How Did They Live So Long?

May you survive another whirlwind week of health care news, until next Friday’s breezy recap.

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ Is Health Spending The Next Big Political Issue?

The Republican-led Congress was unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, but the Trump administration continues to implement elements of the failed GOP bill using executive authority. The latest change would make it easier for states to waive some major parts of the health law, including allowing subsidies for people to buy insurance plans that don’t meet all the law’s requirements.

Meanwhile, in states that are transitioning from Republican governors to Democrats, GOP legislators are using lame-duck sessions to try to scale back executive power and lock in some key health changes, such as work requirements for Medicaid enrollees.

And there is growing evidence that even with health insurance, patients who use significant amounts of medical care are increasingly unable to afford their share.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Joanne Kenen of Politico and Rebecca Adams of CQ Roll Call.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • The Trump administration outlined last week what type of waivers it is willing to consider for states’ ACA markets. Options include changes in who gets premium subsidies and how much they receive, and making short-term insurance plans that are not as comprehensive as current marketplace plans eligible for subsidies.
  • Any changes are likely to end up in court, as have most of the revisions that the Trump administration has proposed.
  • In Wisconsin and Michigan, Republican legislatures are seeking to restrict what the new Democratic governors can do to change GOP policies on Medicaid and challenges to the ACA.
  • A recent study has highlighted that health problems can create financial hardships well beyond the illness. For example, loss of income from a debilitating illness can make paying other bills very difficult and sometimes other family members must give up their jobs to be caregivers.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read too:

Julie Rovner: NBC News.com’s “FDA Approves Drug for Dogs Scared by Noise,” by Maggie Fox

Margot Sanger-Katz: The Washington Post’s “An Experiment Requiring Work for Food Stamps Is a Trump Administration Model,” by Amy Goldstein

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “The CRISPR Baby Scandal Gets Worse by the Day,” by Ed Yong

Rebecca Adams: The New York Times’ “Why Hospitals Should Let You Sleep,” by Austin Frakt

Also mentioned in this episode:

The New York Times: “1,495 Americans Describe the Financial Reality of Being Really Sick,” by Margot Sanger Katz

Kaiser Health News: “No Cash, No Heart. Transplant Centers Require Proof of Payment,” by JoNel Aleccia

CBS News: “High Cost Has Many Diabetics Cutting Back on Insulin,” by Serena Gordon

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

Without Obamacare Penalty, Think It’ll Be Nice To Drop Your Plan? Better Think Twice

Dana Farrell’s car insurance is due. So is her homeowner’s insurance — plus her property taxes.

It’s also time to re-up her health coverage. But that’s where Farrell, a 54-year-old former social worker, is drawing the line.

“I’ve been retired two years and my savings is gone. I’m at my wit’s end,” says the Murrieta, Calif., resident.

So Farrell plans — reluctantly — to drop her health coverage next year because the Affordable Care Act tax penalty for not having insurance is going away.

That penalty — which can reach thousands of dollars annually — was a key reason that Farrell, who considers herself healthy, kept her coverage.

Now, “why do it?” she wonders. “I don’t have any major health issues and I’ve got a lot of bills that just popped up. I can’t afford to pay it anymore.”

Farrell is among millions of people likely to dump their health insurance because of a provision in last year’s Republican tax bill that repeals the Obamacare tax penalty, starting in 2019, by zeroing out the fines.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the repeal of the penalty would move 4 million people to drop their health insurance next year — or not buy it in the first place — and 13 million in 2027.

Some people who hated Obamacare from the start will drop their coverage as a political statement. For people like Farrell, it’s simply an issue of affordability.

Since Farrell started buying her own insurance through the open market in 2016, her monthly premium has swelled by about $200, she says, and she bears the entire cost of her premium because she doesn’t qualify for federal ACA tax credits. Next year, she says, her premium would have jumped to about $600 a month.

Instead, she plans to pay cash for her doctor visits at about $80 a pop, and for any medications she might use — all the while praying that she doesn’t get into a car accident or have a medical emergency.

“It’s a situation that a lot of people find themselves in,” says Miranda Dietz, lead author of a new study that projects how ending the penalty will affect California.

Dana Farrell

People like Farrell whose incomes are too high to qualify for tax credits are especially vulnerable, says Dietz, a research and policy associate at the University of California-Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. They must pay the entire premium themselves.

Premiums, even for a bronze plan with a deductible of more than $6,000, are enormous in some cases, she says. “The state’s done a great job of implementing the ACA,” she says, “but there are still Californians who just find insurance out of reach.”

Up to 450,000 more Californians may be uninsured in 2020 as a result of the penalty ending, and up to 790,000 more by 2023, boosting the state’s uninsurance rate for residents under 65 to 12.9 percent, according to the study. The individual market would suffer the biggest losses.

Covered California, the state health insurance exchange, predicts that enrollment in the individual market — both on and off the exchange — could drop by 12 percent next year, says agency spokesman James Scullary.

Exchange officials also blame the end of the penalty for a 3.5 percent average increase in premiums, because the departure of some healthy people from the market will lead to a sicker and costlier insurance pool.

Health insurance can be difficult to afford, but going without it is a “bad gamble,” Scullary says. Keep in mind: More than 22,000 Covered California enrollees broke, dislocated or sprained arms or shoulders in 2017, and 50,000 enrollees were either diagnosed with — or treated for — cancer, he explains.

“We know that none of those people began the year thinking, ‘This is when I’m going to break my arm,’ or ‘This is the year I get cancer,’” he says.

If you’re considering dropping your plan and risking the devastating financial consequences of an unexpected medical expense, check first to see if you can lower your premium.

“A big mistake for people is to look at the notice they get for their current health insurance and see it’s going up a lot and then throw up their hands and decide they’re going to go without,” says Donna Rosato, a New York-based editor at Consumer Reports who covers health care cost issues.

“Before you do that, look at other options.”

The most important thing to do is seek free help from a certified insurance agent or enrollment “navigator.” You can find local options by clicking on the “Find Help” tab on Covered California’s website, http://www.CoveredCA.com.

Next, see if you can qualify for more financial aid. For instance, if your income is close to the threshold to qualify for tax credits through Covered California or another Obamacare insurance exchange — about $48,500 for an individual or $100,000 for a family of four this year — check with a financial professional about adjusting it, Rosato suggests. You might be able to contribute to an IRA, 401(k) or health savings account to lower the total, she says.

Beyond that, be flexible and willing to switch plans, she advises. Consider different coverage levels, both on and off health insurance exchanges. If you’re in a silver-level plan (the second-lowest tier), you might save money by purchasing a less expensive bronze-level plan that has higher out-of-pocket costs but would protect you in case of a medical emergency.

This year, Farrell got a clean bill of health from her doctor after a round of tests. She’s nervous about being without coverage next year, but feels she doesn’t have a choice.

“It’s going to be the first time in my life I’m not going to have insurance,” she says.


This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

Happy Friday! I don’t know about you, but I have been absolutely riveted by the ethics controversy that has sent the scientific community into a shocked-and-appalled, pearl-clutching frenzy this week. I’ll get to that in a second. First, another too-frequent example of the current pitfalls in our health system: A hospital turned down a woman’s heart transplant request because she lacked a secure source of financing for the drugs necessary for the procedure. The hospital’s suggestion for her? Use crowdfunding to raise the $10,000.

Now here’s what you may have missed as we enter that strange lull between holidays (though there certainly wasn’t a dearth of health news).

New guidelines released by the administration on Thursday, among other things, encourage states to flex their creative muscles on how to spend the subsidy money they get under the health law.

Currently, the subsidies are tied to income, and can be used only for insurance that meets federal standards and is purchased through public marketplaces. But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services wants to lift those restrictions and let states do what they will with the pot of money. That could include: allowing the use of subsidies for short-term “junk insurance” plans; offering subsidies as incentive to woo in younger consumers; setting different income limitations; letting people with employer-based plans set up accounts to use the money, etc., etc.

If states acted on these options, that could steer the marketplace toward the geographical disparity that ran rampant before the health law. But it’s doubtful any state would want to take advantage of this offer in the first place. For one, it would be expensive for states to manage the pot of money. Secondly, even if a state received a waiver for the regulations, court challenges likely would follow. That could be more of a headache than it’s worth.

The Washington Post: New Insurance Guidelines Would Undermine Rules of the Affordable Care Act

Modern Healthcare: CMS Allows States to Get Creative With Federal Exchange Funds Under 1332 Waivers


The lagging numbers for this open-enrollment season are a bit at odds with what experts had seen as a stabilizing, if not quite flourishing, marketplace. While no one is Chicken Little-ing yet (there is still time left to see a boost, and the early weeks of November were busy ones for Americans), health law supporters are concerned that what they see as the administration’s attempts to “sabotage” the Affordable Care Act are coming to fruition.

Politico: Trump May Finally Be Undermining Obamacare

One statistic from the week that experts found “very troubling” was that for the first time in a decade the number of uninsured children rose, despite the improving economy and the low unemployment rate. Rural areas were particularly affected.

Los Angeles Times: Number of Uninsured Children Climbs, Reversing More Than a Decade of Progress, Report Finds


In what is certain to draw fierce pushback from patient advocacy groups and pharma alike, President Donald Trump is expanding Medicare’s negotiating power when certain drug prices rise faster than inflation. The idea has been kicking around for a while as both parties have been trying to come up with the silver bullet for high costs, but the political ramifications are unappetizing. Potentially cutting seniors off from needed drugs — whether it would play out that way or not — has always kept the idea on the back burner.

The New York Times: Trump Moves to Lower Medicare Drug Costs by Relaxing Some Patient Protections

File this under “I’m not sure that’s how it’s supposed to work”: A generic EpiPen is now available. The catch? It’s the exact same price as the one already out there.

The Hill: Generic EpiPen Not Any Cheaper Than Existing Version


FBI background checks were waived for caregivers and mental health workers who were in charge of caring for teens at an immigration detention center in Texas. The revelation ignited outrage, and the Department of Health and Human Services was quick to promise it would fingerprint the employees (officials warned it could take a while, though).

The government also allowed the company who is overseeing the operation of the facility to sidestep mental health requirements — youth shelters generally must have one mental health clinician for every 12 kids, but the contractor was allowed to staff the Texas facility with just one clinician for every 100 children.

The Associated Press: Lawmakers Press for Fingerprinting of Detention Camp Staff

Very quietly, family separations at the border have resumed.

ProPublica: Family Separations Are Still Happening at the Texas Border

Also, Baltimore is suing the Trump administration over its “public charge” policy that lets immigration officials use the acceptance of government aid, such as Medicaid, against those seeking green cards. The lawsuit might be the first of its kind, but it’s doubtful it will be the last.

The Associated Press: Baltimore Sues Trump Administration Over Immigration Policy


It is indicative of just how busy this week was that I haven’t gotten to the (aforementioned) ethics scandal rocking the scientific community yet, but we got here eventually. Chinese scientist He Jiankui dropped a bombshell (unverified and un-peer reviewed) on everyone that he gene-edited human embryos to make designer babies resistant to HIV infections.

This practice crosses an ethical line that many researchers had dug deep, deep, deep in the sand. “Deeply unethical,” “crazy,” “driven by hubris,” were just a few of the reactions from fellow scientists at the shocking news. One consensus that has come out of it, though, seems to be that there’s a crucial need for binding and international guidance on editing human genes. (Oh, and this isn’t over. He says there’s another pregnancy with gene-edited embryos underway.)

Los Angeles Times: Why Geneticists Say It’s Wrong to Edit the DNA of Embryos to Protect Them Against HIV

Stat: He Took a Crash Course in Bioethics, Then Created CRISPR Babies

NPR: Science Summit Denounces Gene-Edited Babies Claim, But Rejects Moratorium

Stat: NIH Director Says There’s Work to Do on Regulating Genome Editing


Medical device policy usually flies a bit under the radar, but it was a hot topic this week. Following a damning report on spinal implants causing severe injury to some patients, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it wants to revamp its (long-criticized and decades-old) approval system.

The Associated Press: FDA Says It Will Overhaul Criticized Medical Device System

And a look at whether the agency’s “first in the world” ambition contributed to a series of high-profile malfunctions.

The Associated Press: At FDA, a New Goal, Then a Push for Speedy Device Reviews


In the miscellaneous file this week:

• The combined suicide and opioid crises are taking a particularly grim toll on the country, sending us into our longest period of generally declining life expectancy since the slice of time that includes a little thing called World War I and the worst flu pandemic in modern history. I’m not going to lie, that’s not a great comparison.

The Associated Press: Suicide, at 50-Year Peak, Pushes Down US Life Expectancy

• A gut-wrenching personal story offers insight into the loved ones left behind in cases of suicides, and how they’re plagued with a forever-unanswerable question of “why”? The entire series is worth a deep read.

USA Today: Suicide: My Mom Took Her Life at The Grand Canyon

• An epidemic of extensive backlog of rape kits languishing on shelves in police departments recently drew a lot of attention. But an even more fundamental and low-profile issue? Those departments that trash them completely before the statute of limitations is up.

CNN: Destroyed: How the Trashing of Rape Kits Failed Victims and Jeopardizes Public Safety

• Johns Hopkins vowed to transform a Florida hospital’s heart surgery unit. Then patients started dying at an alarming rate.

Tampa Bay Times: Heartbroken

• Despite changes in policy, federal prisons are still failing to offer inmates proper mental health care.

The Washington Post/The Marshall Project: Federal Prisons Are Failing Inmates With Mental Health Disorders


As you can tell, it’s a good thing I started drinking coffee (for the first time ever, cue shocked faces) this week! No, I have not been spending my time Googling its health benefits. (OK, I have.) Have a lovely, possibly caffeine-fueled weekend!

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

Happy Friday! I don’t know about you, but I have been absolutely riveted by the ethics controversy that has sent the scientific community into a shocked-and-appalled, pearl-clutching frenzy this week. I’ll get to that in a second. First, another too-frequent example of the current pitfalls in our health system: A hospital turned down a woman’s heart transplant request because she lacked a secure source of financing for the drugs necessary for the procedure. The hospital’s suggestion for her? Use crowdfunding to raise the $10,000.

Now here’s what you may have missed as we enter that strange lull between holidays (though there certainly wasn’t a dearth of health news).

New guidelines released by the administration on Thursday, among other things, encourage states to flex their creative muscles on how to spend the subsidy money they get under the health law.

Currently, the subsidies are tied to income, and can be used only for insurance that meets federal standards and is purchased through public marketplaces. But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services wants to lift those restrictions and let states do what they will with the pot of money. That could include: allowing the use of subsidies for short-term “junk insurance” plans; offering subsidies as incentive to woo in younger consumers; setting different income limitations; letting people with employer-based plans set up accounts to use the money, etc., etc.

If states acted on these options, that could steer the marketplace toward the geographical disparity that ran rampant before the health law. But it’s doubtful any state would want to take advantage of this offer in the first place. For one, it would be expensive for states to manage the pot of money. Secondly, even if a state received a waiver for the regulations, court challenges likely would follow. That could be more of a headache than it’s worth.

The Washington Post: New Insurance Guidelines Would Undermine Rules of the Affordable Care Act

Modern Healthcare: CMS Allows States to Get Creative With Federal Exchange Funds Under 1332 Waivers


The lagging numbers for this open-enrollment season are a bit at odds with what experts had seen as a stabilizing, if not quite flourishing, marketplace. While no one is Chicken Little-ing yet (there is still time left to see a boost, and the early weeks of November were busy ones for Americans), health law supporters are concerned that what they see as the administration’s attempts to “sabotage” the Affordable Care Act are coming to fruition.

Politico: Trump May Finally Be Undermining Obamacare

One statistic from the week that experts found “very troubling” was that for the first time in a decade the number of uninsured children rose, despite the improving economy and the low unemployment rate. Rural areas were particularly affected.

Los Angeles Times: Number of Uninsured Children Climbs, Reversing More Than a Decade of Progress, Report Finds


In what is certain to draw fierce pushback from patient advocacy groups and pharma alike, President Donald Trump is expanding Medicare’s negotiating power when certain drug prices rise faster than inflation. The idea has been kicking around for a while as both parties have been trying to come up with the silver bullet for high costs, but the political ramifications are unappetizing. Potentially cutting seniors off from needed drugs — whether it would play out that way or not — has always kept the idea on the back burner.

The New York Times: Trump Moves to Lower Medicare Drug Costs by Relaxing Some Patient Protections

File this under “I’m not sure that’s how it’s supposed to work”: A generic EpiPen is now available. The catch? It’s the exact same price as the one already out there.

The Hill: Generic EpiPen Not Any Cheaper Than Existing Version


FBI background checks were waived for caregivers and mental health workers who were in charge of caring for teens at an immigration detention center in Texas. The revelation ignited outrage, and the Department of Health and Human Services was quick to promise it would fingerprint the employees (officials warned it could take a while, though).

The government also allowed the company who is overseeing the operation of the facility to sidestep mental health requirements — youth shelters generally must have one mental health clinician for every 12 kids, but the contractor was allowed to staff the Texas facility with just one clinician for every 100 children.

The Associated Press: Lawmakers Press for Fingerprinting of Detention Camp Staff

Very quietly, family separations at the border have resumed.

ProPublica: Family Separations Are Still Happening at the Texas Border

Also, Baltimore is suing the Trump administration over its “public charge” policy that lets immigration officials use the acceptance of government aid, such as Medicaid, against those seeking green cards. The lawsuit might be the first of its kind, but it’s doubtful it will be the last.

The Associated Press: Baltimore Sues Trump Administration Over Immigration Policy


It is indicative of just how busy this week was that I haven’t gotten to the (aforementioned) ethics scandal rocking the scientific community yet, but we got here eventually. Chinese scientist He Jiankui dropped a bombshell (unverified and un-peer reviewed) on everyone that he gene-edited human embryos to make designer babies resistant to HIV infections.

This practice crosses an ethical line that many researchers had dug deep, deep, deep in the sand. “Deeply unethical,” “crazy,” “driven by hubris,” were just a few of the reactions from fellow scientists at the shocking news. One consensus that has come out of it, though, seems to be that there’s a crucial need for binding and international guidance on editing human genes. (Oh, and this isn’t over. He says there’s another pregnancy with gene-edited embryos underway.)

Los Angeles Times: Why Geneticists Say It’s Wrong to Edit the DNA of Embryos to Protect Them Against HIV

Stat: He Took a Crash Course in Bioethics, Then Created CRISPR Babies

NPR: Science Summit Denounces Gene-Edited Babies Claim, But Rejects Moratorium

Stat: NIH Director Says There’s Work to Do on Regulating Genome Editing


Medical device policy usually flies a bit under the radar, but it was a hot topic this week. Following a damning report on spinal implants causing severe injury to some patients, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it wants to revamp its (long-criticized and decades-old) approval system.

The Associated Press: FDA Says It Will Overhaul Criticized Medical Device System

And a look at whether the agency’s “first in the world” ambition contributed to a series of high-profile malfunctions.

The Associated Press: At FDA, a New Goal, Then a Push for Speedy Device Reviews


In the miscellaneous file this week:

• The combined suicide and opioid crises are taking a particularly grim toll on the country, sending us into our longest period of generally declining life expectancy since the slice of time that includes a little thing called World War I and the worst flu pandemic in modern history. I’m not going to lie, that’s not a great comparison.

The Associated Press: Suicide, at 50-Year Peak, Pushes Down US Life Expectancy

• A gut-wrenching personal story offers insight into the loved ones left behind in cases of suicides, and how they’re plagued with a forever-unanswerable question of “why”? The entire series is worth a deep read.

USA Today: Suicide: My Mom Took Her Life at The Grand Canyon

• An epidemic of extensive backlog of rape kits languishing on shelves in police departments recently drew a lot of attention. But an even more fundamental and low-profile issue? Those departments that trash them completely before the statute of limitations is up.

CNN: Destroyed: How the Trashing of Rape Kits Failed Victims and Jeopardizes Public Safety

• Johns Hopkins vowed to transform a Florida hospital’s heart surgery unit. Then patients started dying at an alarming rate.

Tampa Bay Times: Heartbroken

• Despite changes in policy, federal prisons are still failing to offer inmates proper mental health care.

The Washington Post/The Marshall Project: Federal Prisons Are Failing Inmates With Mental Health Disorders


As you can tell, it’s a good thing I started drinking coffee (for the first time ever, cue shocked faces) this week! No, I have not been spending my time Googling its health benefits. (OK, I have.) Have a lovely, possibly caffeine-fueled weekend!

Ruling Expected In Case Over Insurer Coverage Limits On Mental Health Care Services

The impact of the ruling in the consolidated cases of Wit v. United Behavioral Health and Alexander v. United Behavioral Health could ripple across the country as many providers and patients say that, despite laws requiring insurers to cover behavioral care on parity with care for physical conditions, they often encounter significant problems getting carriers to pay for needed treatment.

Ruling Expected In Case Over Insurer Coverage Limits On Mental Health Care Services

The impact of the ruling in the consolidated cases of Wit v. United Behavioral Health and Alexander v. United Behavioral Health could ripple across the country as many providers and patients say that, despite laws requiring insurers to cover behavioral care on parity with care for physical conditions, they often encounter significant problems getting carriers to pay for needed treatment.

Short On Federal Funding, Obamacare Enrollment Navigators Switch Tactics

Enrollment is down sharply on the federal health insurance marketplace this fall, and the consumer assistance groups that help with sign-ups think they know why.

They don’t have the staff to help as many customers as before because the Trump administration slashed funding. The federal government is spending $10 million this year on navigators who help individuals enroll in coverage. The government spent $36 million in 2017 and $63 million in 2016.

“We don’t have the people to provide the enrollment assistance nor to do the outreach and marketing to let people know what’s happening,” said Jodi Ray at the University of South Florida, who has overseen Florida’s largest navigator program since 2014.

Ray’s program received $1.2 million in federal funding this year, down from $5 million a year ago. Florida leads the nation in enrollment in the Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.

With less money, Ray can afford to pay only 59 navigators across the state this year, down from 152 a year ago. With fewer navigators, much of the group’s counseling is done by phone instead of in person. That complicates their job, she said, because it is much easier to talk with and show marketplace customers in person when looking at dozens of health plans with different costs and benefits.

Open enrollment in the Obamacare plans began Nov. 1 and will run until Dec. 15 for the 39 states covered by the federal exchange, healthcare.gov. The other exchanges — run by states — typically extend until the end of December or into January.

Obamacare plans are for people without workplace or government coverage.

Nationwide, navigator groups are scrambling to make up for the loss of federal funding to ensure they can help people make sense of their health insurance options.

  • In South Carolina, the Palmetto Project has transformed into the state’s first nonprofit insurance agency. Several of its former federally funded navigators are now licensed insurance agents. In their new role, they get paid a commission on their sales and don’t have to follow Trump administration rules that encourage navigators to talk to customers about short-term plans with limited benefits. The agents can also help customers enroll in Medicaid, Medicare and off-exchange plans.
  • The Community Council of Greater Dallas, which was funded last year to help with enrollment in 56 counties, has raised money from private donors to continue serving seven counties around Dallas. But it has 25 fewer navigators, so consumers seeking help must wait three days on average, compared with less than a day last year. Across Texas, 211 of 254 counties have no federally paid navigators.
  • In Wisconsin, the organization Covering Wisconsin has raised millions of dollars from cities, counties and local United Way chapters, as well as the state Medicaid agency, to make up for the federal cuts. Even still, it will be able to provide in-person assistance in only eight counties around Milwaukee and Madison. Twenty other counties are served by telephone.
  • The Kansas Association for the Medically Underserved is relying totally on volunteers to help consumers with in-person and telephone assistance. In the past year, the association was able to use government funding to pay about 20 navigators.

Nationally, nearly 800 counties served by the federal marketplace will not have any federally funded navigators this fall — up from 127 counties in 2016, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Federal officials said they were not providing funds for navigators in Iowa, Montana or New Hampshire because no organizations applied in those states.

Nearly 12 million people across the country — including nearly 9 million on the federal exchange — enrolled in Obamacare plans for 2018.

At the halfway point in the six-week enrollment period, 2.4 million people chose a plan for the 2019 coverage year on healthcare.gov, the federal health insurance exchange, according to data released Wednesday by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That compares with nearly 2.8 million consumers who selected their coverage through the exchange during the first 25 days last year.

Among states with the largest enrollment drops: Pennsylvania (down 25 percent from last year), Missouri (down 25 percent) and Ohio (down 20 percent).

The annual enrollment tally is being closely followed in part because 2019 marks the first year since the marketplace plans began in 2014 that Americans won’t be fined for failing to have coverage.

But consumer experts think the lack of navigator funding could end up having a bigger impact on enrollment. Caroline Gómez-Tom, navigator program manager of Covering Wisconsin, said the end of the so-called individual mandate penalty has been a “non-issue” among people seeking coverage.

“Some folks mention it, but at the end of the day they still walk away with health coverage,” she said. “The ability to have coverage at affordable prices outweighs the penalty being gone because people still see health care insurance as important to have.”

Consumers generally have a greater choice of plans for 2019 as more companies enter the individual market and existing plans expand service areas. Plus, premiums are dropping in some areas, and where they are rising the rate of increase is among the lowest in several years.

Katrina McGivern, director of policy and public affairs for the Kansas Association for the Medically Underserved, said people in rural areas of the state will have the most difficulty getting help as a result of funding cuts.

After five years of experience, she said, she is hopeful that people are figuring out how to do it on their own. Still, she added, there are always “people who need assistance to get through it.”

Is Trump Pushing Health Insurance Innovation Or An ACA Rollback?

On his first day in office, as part of his mission to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, President Donald Trump signed an order promising to give states flexibility “to create a more free and open healthcare market.”

The administration on Thursday released an official set of examples to help states flex these powers.

It is intended to roll back key elements of Obama-era requirements, which were designed to promote enrollment in ACA plans that cover a broad range of medical needs and meet uniform national standards.

Seema Verma, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, said those strict rules were seen by many as burdensome, and “virtually impossible” for states to meet.

Instead, the Trump administration wants states to innovate in ways that could produce more lower-cost options, even if those alternatives do not provide the same level of financial or medical coverage as an ACA plan.

“I’m confident states will come up with ideas that will work better,” said Verma.

Still, coupled with other ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to gut Obamacare, policy experts predict the ideas would further foster a parallel market of cheaper, less robust coverage that could draw younger or healthier consumers, but drive up premiums for those who remain in ACA market plans.

“Invariably, the coverage is going to be more expensive for people who really need comprehensive coverage,” said Timothy Jost, a retired Washington and Lee University law professor who follows the ACA closely.

One of the biggest changes signaled by the administration involves allowing states to revamp how federal subsidies are used. Currently, they are strictly targeted to lower-income Americans and are seen as key to bolstering enrollment in marketplace plans.

The Trump guidance would give states wider latitude to expand or narrow the income range eligible for subsidies, target them toward younger people or allow them to be used for less costly but skimpier types of insurance.

This would “potentially upend the subsidy structure,” said Sabrina Corlette, research professor at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute.

Another example would, for the first time, make federal subsidy money available to people who get job-based insurance, countering Obama-era rules that generally prohibited that. It would let states use federal dollars to fund accounts consumers could use to buy insurance or pay other health costs, such as deductibles or copayments. Employers or consumers could also add additional funds to these accounts.

Still, managing those accounts would be a large administrative expense for a state to oversee, said Corlette. “I don’t understand why a state would want to set it up,” she added.

Supporters say the examples unveiled Thursday would give consumers more control over how they choose to spend their health care dollars and the types of coverage they want to buy. They say it might also improve the markets, which are seeing declining enrollment as premiums rise.

“If states can provide larger subsidies to younger individuals to attract them to enroll, that will improve the market overall,” said Christopher Condeluci, a Washington, D.C., attorney who specializes in employee benefits and has served as the tax and benefits counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.

However, if many states follow the administration’s lead, critics say, it would bring back the days when insurance rules varied widely state by state. Consumers could end up buying skimpier plans that leave them vulnerable to high, unexpected medical bills.

While not prescriptive, the examples are designed to encourage states to innovate and apply for permission to offer more choices for consumers, so long as the proposals don’t cost taxpayers more and don’t reduce access to ACA plans, said Verma.

State proposals would still have to be affordable, comprehensive and not raise the federal deficit, she said. And CMS would pay particular attention to potential effects on low-income Americans, she added.

Reshaping The Individual Market

The administration’s examples focus on states’ health marketplaces, where insurance plans are designed for individuals who don’t get job-based coverage and small businesses. An estimated 14 million people buy their own coverage through those markets or through brokers.

Premiums in those markets have risen substantially since the law took effect in 2014, for a variety of reasons, including lower-than-expected enrollment by healthy people and actions taken by Congress and the Trump administration that removed the tax penalty for failing to have coverage, eliminated some payments to insurers and loosened restrictions on alternative types of insurance plans.

The administration’s examples add a new twist to a provision of the ACA, which gave states the option of seeking a federal waiver to develop alternative marketplace proposals.

To get one under Obamacare rules, however, states have to meet four “guardrails” established in 2015. These require states to ensure their proposals would provide equally comprehensive and affordable coverage, not result in fewer people enrolling or increased costs for taxpayers.

The examples, tapped by the administration as “waiver concepts,” build on the Trump administration guidance issued in late October to loosen those guardrails. That guidance, effective in 2020, says states have to provide access to affordable and comprehensive coverage, but will not be held to a strict tally of how many people actually enroll. So long as a state could show that equal numbers of people were buying some kind of coverage — either comprehensive ACA plans or less expensive but skimpier plans — it could pass the test.

That October announcement, and Thursday’s concepts, drew immediate criticism from ACA supporters, who said it encourages the use of subsidies to buy short-term plans, which aren’t as comprehensive as ACA coverage and can bar people with preexisting conditions.

Congressional Democrats sent a letter to top administration officials saying the process by which the changes are being made — meaning they are not following a formal rule-making process — are illegal.

“We believe this sub-regulatory guidance exceeds the Secretaries’ statutory authority,” wrote Ways & Means ranking member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.). “It appears to be part of the Administration’s ideologically motivated efforts to sabotage the ACA.”

The Brookings Institution and other experts have raised similar questions and predicted a legal challenge.

“As soon as any state proceeds to go somewhere with this, there will be legal challenges,” said Jost, the law professor.

Verma pushed back against this warning, noting that the Obama administration also issued its guardrails as guidance, not a formal rule.

And, just as when the administration released its earlier guidance in October, Verma anticipated that critics would say the ideas would adversely affect people with preexisting medical conditions.

Those critics argue that anything that draws younger and healthier people out of the market will drive up costs for those who remain in ACA plans, including those with medical conditions who might be barred from buying an alternative policy, such as a short-term plan.

But Verma said that “nothing in this guidance would take away protections from people with preexisting conditions.”

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ Reading The Tea Leaves In Blue Wave’s Wake

This week, “What the Health?” panelists discuss, among other things, how the House Democrats’ leadership battle could affect the congressional health policy agenda.

The panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of Kaiser Health News, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Ollstein of Politico and Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

As the post-election dust settles on Capitol Hill, the Democrats — soon to be in control of the House of Representatives — have begun the process of choosing their leadership team. How this shakes out will have a lot to do with how health policy agenda takes shape in the lower chamber.

House Democrats nominated Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to retake the speaker’s gavel, but she still needs to win over more of her colleagues to secure the speaker post in January.

But all the action this week wasn’t focused on Congress. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unveiled a proposed overhaul of the FDA’s decades-old medical device approval process, and the Trump administration announced proposals it said would reduce Medicare prescription drug costs. Critics fear those changes could mean that some people with chronic diseases like AIDS or cancer might not have access to the drugs they need.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • House Democrats nominated Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to retake the speaker’s gavel this week along with the rest of its leadership slate, Reps. Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. This is only the first step, though. The leadership positions will not be filled officially until January, when they are voted on by the full House. Although Pelosi is still wrangling for the support needed to earn her the required 218 votes, most insiders expect the Democrat’s leadership team to look much as it did the last time Democrats ruled the House chamber in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law. That means the House will likely be laser-focused on the necessary steps to protect the ACA. There may also be hearings on single-payer health insurance — a concept that is increasingly gaining interest and support within the caucus, and especially among some of its newest members.
  • In the background, the Texas lawsuit that could overturn the ACA’s protections for people with preexisting conditions is still pending. That decision could come any day. Keep in mind, though, that whatever the court rules, it is likely to be appealed immediately and move up the legal ladder. And, in the interim, House Democrats may still move forward with legislation to strengthen those ACA safeguards. Such a measure could get some GOP support because many Republicans seeking re-election this year said they wanted to ensure that patients with preexisting medical conditions would not lose coverage.
  • The FDA unveiled a proposed overhaul of its decades-old medical device approval system. Among its provisions, the plan includes steps to ensure that new medical devices reflect current safety and effectiveness features. Critics of the current system say it has failed to detect problems with some implants — like hip replacements that failed prematurely or surgical mesh that has been linked to pain and bleeding. The changes, if approved, could take years to implement and some might require congressional approval.
  • The Trump administration proposed a series of changes to reduce the number of prescription drugs that all Medicare drug plans must cover. The proposal focuses on drugs in six “protected classes” and involves medications such as antidepressants, antipsychotic medicines, cancer drugs and antiretrovirals to treat HIV/AIDS. Administration officials have said the proposal could cut costs for Medicare, but patient advocacy groups say it could reduce patients’ access for much-needed treatments. The proposed changes would not occur until 2020, and Congress could intervene to stop them.

Also this week, Julie Rovner interviews KHN senior correspondent Jay Hancock, who investigated and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature for Kaiser Health News and NPR. It’s about a single mother from Ohio who received a wrongful bill for her multiple sclerosis treatment. You can read the story here.

If you have a medical bill you would like NPR and KHN to investigate, you can submit it here.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read too:

Mary Agnes Carey: The New York Times’ “This City’s Overdose Deaths Have Plunged. Can Others Learn From It?” by Abby Goodnough

Margot Sanger-Katz: NPR’s “Rethinking Bed Rest for Pregnancy,” by Alison Kodjak

Anna Edney: The Washington Post’s “Overdoses, Bedsores, Broken Bones: What Happened When a Private-Equity Firm Sought to Care for Society’s Most Vulnerable,” by Peter Whoriskey and Dan Keating

Alice Ollstein: Wired.com’s “The Science Is Clear: Dirty Farm Water Is Making Us Sick,” by Elizabeth Shogren and Susie Neilson

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

Bajo Trump, aumenta el número de niños sin cobertura médica por primera vez en años

Después de años de disminución constante, en 2017, unos 276.000 niños se sumaron a las filas de los menores sin seguro de salud, según un nuevo informe de la Universidad de Georgetown.

Aunque en términos estadísticos no es un gran salto -la proporción de niños sin seguro llegó a 5% en 2017, comparado con 4.7% el año anterior- todavía es sorprendente. La tasa de no asegurados por lo general se mantiene estable o cae en tiempos de crecimiento económico. En septiembre, la tasa de desempleo en los Estados Unidos alcanzó su nivel más bajo desde 1969.

“La nación está retrocediendo en el camino por asegurar a los niños, y es probable que esto empeore”, dijo Joan Alker, coautora del estudio y directora ejecutiva del Centro para Niños y Familias de Georgetown.

Alker y otros defensores de la salud infantil culpan de este cambio a la administración Trump y al Congreso controlado por los republicanos, porque dicen que sus políticas y acciones han obstaculizado la inscripción para tener seguro.

De acuerdo con datos del Censo analizados por Georgetown, la cantidad de niños sin cobertura aumentó a 3.9 millones en 2017, de aproximadamente 3.6 millones el año anterior.

Los niños hispanos siguen siendo los que tienen la tasa más alta de no asegurados: 7,8%, en comparación con el 4,9% entre los blancos no hispanos y el 4,6% entre las personas de raza negra no hispanas. (Los hispanos pueden ser de cualquier raza).

La tasa general de personas sin seguro en todas las edades, que cayó de 2013 a 2016 luego de la implementación de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud Asequible (ACA), se mantuvo sin cambios: 8.8% el año pasado.

La proporción de niños con cobertura patrocinada por el empleador aumentó modestamente en 2017, pero no lo suficiente como para compensar la disminución de niños que se inscriben en Medicaid o que obtienen cobertura a través de los mercados de seguros del Obamacare, dijo Alker.

Si bien ningún estado logró frenar esta baja, nueve experimentaron aumentos importantes de niños sin cobertura médica. El mayor fue Dakota del Sur (de 4.7% a 6.2%), Utah (de 6% a 7.3%) y Texas (de 9.8% a 10.7%).

Más de 1 de cada 5 niños sin seguro en el país vive en Texas, aproximadamente 835,000 niños. Por lejos, el número más alto entre todos los estados.

En Florida vivían 325,000 niños sin seguro el año pasado, ya que la tasa de no asegurados para ese grupo de edad aumentó 0.7 puntos porcentuales, a 7.3%. California tenía 301,000 niños sin seguro, aunque su número se mantuvo prácticamente sin cambios, en comparación con el año anterior.

Otros estados con aumentos significativos fueron Georgia, Carolina del Sur, Ohio, Tennessee y Massachusetts.

Las tasas de niños sin seguro de salud aumentaron casi el triple en los estados que no expandieron Medicaid bajo ACA, según el informe. Los estudios han demostrado que los niños cuyos padres están asegurados tienen más probabilidades de tener cobertura.

Georgetown ha estado siguiendo estas cifras desde 2008, cuando 7,6 millones de niños, alrededor del 10%, no tenían de cobertura de salud.

Debido a que casi todos los niños de bajos ingresos son elegibles para Medicaid o para el Programa de Seguro de Salud Infantil (CHIP), el desafío es asegurarse de que los padres reciban información sobre estos programas, averigüen si son elegibles, los inscriban y los mantengan registrados, dijo Alker.

El Congreso tardó varios meses en aprobar el financiamiento del programa CHIP en 2017, por lo que muchos estados tuvieron que alertar a los consumidores sobre posibles congelamientos en la inscripción. El Congreso restauró la financiación federal a principios de 2018.

Además, el año pasado, las familias de bajos ingresos fueron bombardeadas por noticias sobre la intención del Congreso de derogar la ley de salud, que logró extender la cobertura a millones de personas. En los últimos dos años, la administración Trump ha recortado los fondos para los navegadores del Obamacare, que ayudan a las personas a inscribirse para tener seguro de salud.

Alker también señalo como algo negativo la propuesta de septiembre de la administración Trump, conocida como “carga pública”, que podría dificultar que los inmigrantes con papeles obtengan la residencia permanente (Green card o tarjeta verde) si recibieron ciertos tipos de asistencia pública, incluidos Medicaid, cupones de alimentos y subsidios para la vivienda. La tarjeta verde les permite vivir y trabajar permanentemente en los Estados Unidos.

OLE Health, un gran proveedor de servicios de salud con sede en Napa Valley, California, que atiende a muchos inmigrantes, dijo que ha visto a los pacientes retirarse de Medicaid en el último año. La directora ejecutiva, Alicia Hardy, dijo que muchos han abandonado la cobertura por temor a que la ayuda pueda poner en peligro su estatus migratorio.

“Tienen miedo de ser deportados”, dijo.

Estos eventos pueden haber influenciado para que las familias sacaran a los niños de las coberturas. “La alfombra de bienvenida ha sido retirada y, como resultado, vemos más niños sin seguro”, agregó Alker.

Y concluyó que la forma más fácil de cambiar la tendencia sería que más estados expandieran Medicaid. Catorce estados aún tienen que hacerlo. Aunque la expansión impacta en gran medida a los adultos, cuando los padres se inscriben, es probable que también inscriban a sus hijos.

La cobertura de KHN de los problemas de salud de los niños es apoyada en parte por la Fundación Heising-Simons.

Under Trump, Number Of Uninsured Kids Rose For First Time This Decade

After years of steady decline, the number of U.S. children without health insurance rose by 276,000 in 2017, according to a Georgetown University report released Thursday.

While not a big jump statistically — the share of uninsured kids rose to 5 percent in 2017 from 4.7 percent a year earlier — it is still striking. The uninsured rate typically remains stable or drops during times of economic growth. In September, the U.S. unemployment rate hit its lowest level since 1969.

“The nation is going backwards on insuring kids and it is likely to get worse,” said Joan Alker, co-author of the study and executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families.

Alker and other child health advocates place the blame for this change on the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, saying their policies and actions cast a pall on enrollment.

The number of children without coverage rose to 3.9 million in 2017 from about 3.6 million a year earlier, according to Census data analyzed by Georgetown.

The overall uninsured rate for people of all ages — which plummeted from 2013 to 2016 following the health law’s implementation — remained unchanged at 8.8 percent last year.

The share of children with employer-sponsored coverage rose modestly in 2017, but not by enough to make up for the drop in children enrolling in Medicaid or getting coverage from Obamacare insurance exchanges, Alker said.

While no states made any significant gains in lowering children’s uninsured rate, nine states experienced significant increases. The biggest occurred in South Dakota (up from 4.7 percent to 6.2 percent), Utah (up from 6 percent to 7.3 percent) and Texas (from 9.8 percent to 10.7 percent).

More than 1 in 5 uninsured children nationwide live in Texas — about 835,000 kids — by far the highest number of any state.

Florida had 325,000 uninsured children last year, as its uninsured rate for that age group rose 0.7 percentage points to 7.3 percent. California had 301,000 children without insurance, though its number remained virtually unchanged, relative to the previous year.

Other states with significant increases were Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Massachusetts.

The uninsured rates for children increased at nearly triple the rates in states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, according to the report. Studies have shown that children whose parents are insured are more likely to have coverage.

The uninsured rate among Hispanic children was 7.8 percent, compared with 4.9 percent among whites and 4.6 percent among blacks overall. (Hispanics can be of any race.)

Georgetown has been tracking these figures since 2008 when 7.6 million children — or about 10 percent of kids — lacked health coverage.

Because nearly all low-income children are eligible for Medicaid or the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, the challenge is making sure parents are aware of the programs, getting them enrolled and keeping them signed up as long as they are eligible, Alker said.

Congress let the CHIP program funding lapse for several months in 2017, putting states in a position of having to warn consumers that they would soon have to freeze enrollment. Congress restored federal funding in early in 2018.

In addition, low-income families were bombarded by news reports last year of Congress threatening to repeal the health law that expanded coverage to millions. In the past two years, the Trump administration has slashed funding to Obamacare navigators to help people sign up for coverage.

Alker also pointed to the Trump administration’s September proposal, known as the “public charge” rule, which could make it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards if they have received certain kinds of public assistance — including Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies. Green cards allow them to live and work permanently in the United States.

OLE Health, a large health provider based in Napa Valley, Calif., that serves many immigrants, said it has seen patients disenroll from Medicaid in the past year. CEO Alicia Hardy said many have dropped coverage over fears the help could jeopardize their immigration status.

“They are afraid of being deported,” she said.

All those events could have deterred families from getting their kids covered. “The welcome mat has been pulled back and as a result we see more uninsured children,” Alker said.

She said the easiest way to change the trend would be for more states to expand Medicaid under the health law. Fourteen states have yet to do so. Though the expansion largely affects adults, as parents enroll, their children are likely to follow.


KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by the Heising-Simons Foundation.