CONCORD, N.H. - The nation's highest court heard an historic case this week about health coverage, and tens of thousands of Granite Staters have a major stake in the outcome.
At issue is whether federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act coverage in New Hampshire and other states are illegal, because those states did not set up an exchange.
Before the law extended coverage, said Dr. Travis Harker, a family physician in Concord, about 20 percent of his patients were poverty cases who got office visits but often could not afford the cost of their treatment.
"And now they've just started to get their health under control," he said, "and if they are unable to afford it because the insurance gets pulled from them, they are going to go back to what they did before - not come into a doctor, not get the medications they need."
Opponents of the Act argue that subsidies are only legal in states that set up their own exchange. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the King vs. Burwell case in June or July.
Zandra Rice-Hawkins, executive director of Granite State Progress, said a ruling against the Affordable Care Act would amount to a 74 percent health-care cost hike on the citizens of New Hampshire. She said lawmakers don't need to wait on the Supreme Court.
"New Hampshire could authorize the state to take over the federally facilitated exchange we currently have," she said, "so that is certainly a political option before us and one that we would encourage politicians to look at."
Harker, past-president of the New Hampshire Medical Society, said a ruling against the act will impact more than just his patients.
"And suffer the consequences from it," he said, "and it's going to end up costing everyone more money, because they'll end up in the emergency room with a severe problem, like a heart attack or a stroke - whereas if they'd been able to get in to their doctor, we could have prevented this problem."
In all, 53,000 people in the Granite State signed up for coverage under the Affordable Care Act and 37,000 got coverage with the help of federal tax credits.
get more stories like this via email
A recent report examined how some rural Tennessee hospitals have managed to stay afloat despite financial challenges.
The report includes interviews from staff at five different rural hospitals, which range in size from 25 to 125 beds.
Judy Roitman, executive director of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign, said some of the hospitals are drowning in uncompensated care. She explained as part of their research, they did an interview with a CEO from a rural hospital in Kentucky who expressed the importance of Medicaid expansion.
"Kentucky has expanded its Medicaid program and Tennessee has not," Roitman pointed out. "He said that's the key to our stability is actually having the funds coming in to treat these patients. And the CEOs and others in Tennessee hospitals said it would make a huge difference to have that federal funding."
Roitman added the federal government is offering Tennessee a nine-to-one match. If Tennessee were to expand Medicaid, at least 330,000 people would gain access to coverage.
Roitman pointed out the report suggested further steps hospitals could take, including examining how they are reimbursed for services provided. She noted private insurance plans tend to provide the highest reimbursement rates, and said more funding is needed to support TennCare, which does not cover enough of the cost.
"TennCare is all managed by managed-care organizations," Roitman explained. "They negotiate with every hospital about how they're going to reimburse and the big hospitals have some leverage to demand better payment and the smaller hospitals are just, they're just not getting paid."
Roitman added the report credited strong community engagement and effective hospital leadership as key factors in staff retention. Robust management and maintaining an engaged workforce significantly affect a hospital's viability, according to the report.
get more stories like this via email
Medicare and Medicaid are key sources of health coverage for many Americans and some people qualify for assistance under both programs. With lagging enrollment for the unique plans, outreach efforts are underway.
According to KFF Health News, only about three in 10 people who qualify for Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans were enrolled in 2021. Experts said the option is designed for people who need additional help because of disabilities, certain health conditions or their age.
Dr. Gina Williams, associate medical director for UnitedHealthcare, said the plans try to take a dynamic approach to serving those eligible.
"Everything from managing your wellness to managing your behavioral health needs and then everyday needs," Williams outlined. "It's kind of a more comprehensive package for people who need a little bit more support."
Everyday needs include meal benefits and bathroom safety devices. The National Council on Aging said D-SNPs aim to provide a more streamlined coordination of care because there is assistance in arranging the services. Wisconsin's enrollment numbers are similar to the national rate, at 28%.
Christine Huberty, lead benefit specialist and northern region supervising attorney for the Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources, said a tricky component of the plans is navigating provider network restrictions. A rural resident might have to travel farther to see a doctor covered under the plan and she cautioned it warrants careful research when enrolling.
"I would say first and foremost, look at the provider network restrictions," Huberty advised. "Look at what's available in your area."
Meanwhile, Williams noted the push to get more eligible people to sign up coincides with more awareness around preventive care in a post-pandemic world.
"Everybody's kind of going into a phase where they're not only thinking about acute illness, but they're thinking about overall care," Williams observed. "What was the impact of the pandemic from a psychological standpoint? Do you need more support and then you also need more coordination of benefits?"
Disclosure: UnitedHealthcare contributes to our fund for reporting on Health Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
In Mississippi and across the country, Community Health Centers are getting a funding increase, thanks to Congress passing a bipartisan spending package.
Community Health Centers in Mississippi serve patients without regard to their insurance status or ability to pay. More than 20 locations in the state provide medical care to more than more than 380,000 people.
Joe Dunn, senior vice president of public policy and advocacy for the National Association of Community Health Centers, said roughly one in 11 Americans gets their care from this type of clinic.
"Community Health Centers are the largest primary care network in the nation, providing care for 31 million Americans," Dunn pointed out. "This network is critically important, because they provide primary care, behavioral health, dental; just an array of services that are so critically needed."
Dunn emphasized more can be done. Research shows more than 100 million Americans need better access to primary care. Community Health Centers in Mississippi also support more than 4,000 jobs and about $678 million dollars in economic activity in the communities where they're located.
Dunn noted the increased funding from Congress will help the clinics provide more comprehensive care and reach more underserved patients, especially in rural communities, which ends up saving the state money.
"By incentivizing people to go get primary care, you alleviate more downstream costs," Dunn emphasized. "There's fewer hospitalizations and complications from chronic conditions, based on preventive screening and care at the outset."
The Congressional Budget Office reports the increase in funding for Community Health Centers just through the end of this year will reduce federal spending on public health insurance programs by more than $700 million.
get more stories like this via email