Archive for Advocacy

Legislative Update: What Happened This Week in Washington…

Legislative Update: What Happened This Week in Washington…

From President Trump’s new tax plan to renewed funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program to former President Obama’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, health care has been at the center of a lot of discussions this week on Capitol Hill.

Vote Expected Today for CHIP — The House is expected to vote today to pass legislation to refund Children’s Health Insurance Program and send federal funds to community health centers. However, questions remain about how to pay for the funding efforts. The original funding legislation for CHIP expired a month ago leaving state programs scrambling to extending their budgets to cover millions of covered children. It’s expected that the bill will face party opposition in the Senate. While both parties have agreed to renew CHIP, how to pay for the program remains the sticking point.

New Tax Plan Proposed — The proposal repeals the student loan interest deduction — a policy that helped more than 12 million students with education loans save up to $2,500 on their tax bills in 2015. Taxpayers aren’t required to itemize their deductions to claim it, but it’s available to anyone paying interest on either private or public student loans and makes less than $80,000 in a year. Many of those student loan holders are recent medical school graduates, who make a median $54,600 in their first year of residency, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

No More IPAB? — The House voted Thursday to abolish the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a federal panel that was intended to find ways to curb Medicare spending with little Congressional oversight. It was a creation of the ACA, yet the IPAB’s presidentially-appointed members were never named. The bill now moves to the Senate where Republicans may have difficulty finding the necessary votes to pass it as a stand-alone bill before the end of the year.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Judge Rejects Bid to Revive ACA Subsidies

Judge Rejects Bid to Revive ACA Subsidies

A federal judge has denied several states’ attempt to compel the Trump administration to continue paying cost-sharing reduction payments. Attorney generals from 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed a motion in the U.S. District Court seeking a temporary injunction that would reinstate the payments, which the administration decided to end earlier this month.

Judge Vince Chhabria was skeptical of the states’ argument during a hearing on the motion earlier this week, noting many states have already taken steps to diffuse the impact of CSR uncertainty. In his order denying the states’ request for a temporary injunction, Chhabria said although a federal judge did previously rule that CSR payments should end because they were not properly appropriated by Congress, in this instance, the Trump administration has the stronger legal argument. Chhabria also noted any emergency relief requested by the states would be counterproductive as state insurance regulators have been working for months to prepare for the possibility the subsidies would end.

Many states, he continued, have therefore “devised responses that give millions of lower-income people better health coverage options than they would otherwise have had.”

The Trump administration this month terminated the payments to the insurers, which help cover medical expenses for low-income Americans, as part of several moves to dismantle Obama’s signature healthcare law formally known as the Affordable Care Act. The subsidies were due to cost $7 billion this year and were estimated at $10 billion for 2018, according to congressional analysts.

Insurers have argued they do not profit from the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, but pass them on directly to consumers to reduce deductibles, co-payments and other out-of-pocket medical expenses for low-income people. Because insurers would raise premiums on policies in the absence of the subsidies, the government would be compelled to spend more on financial assistance to low-income Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has found that a bipartisan Senate proposal to shore up Obamacare insurance marketplaces by reviving the subsidies would cut the U.S. deficit by $3.8 billion over the next decade.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Tentative Bipartisan Deal Reached to Restore CSR Payments

Tentative Bipartisan Deal Reached to Restore CSR Payments

Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate reached a bipartisan deal “in principle” to restore Obamacare cost-sharing reduction payments for two years in exchange for more state flexibility in the health care act. The proposed plan would also restore more than $100 million in funding for health care outreach.

The bipartisan bill gained momentum later in the week with 24 co-sponsors to the legislation. President Trump has suggested he was “open” to authorizing payments to insurers that help offset out-of-pocket health costs in the short term — but had not given up his goal of repealing the ACA.

The short-term solution would allow insurers to offer catastrophic insurance plans to consumers ages 30 and older on the exchanges, while maintaining a single-risk pool, meanwhile also making it easier for states to obtain waivers to customize health plan rules to their needs by speeding up administration approval of the waivers and allow states to copy provisions in waivers that were already approved. This could also provide a reprieve for the Affordable Care Act that would prevent 2018 premiums from increasing as much as previously predicted. However, consumers in many states will still face double-digit rate increases, and in many counties, health plans will be available from only one insurance company.

The proposed legislation would not allow states to change the essential benefits insurers are now required to offer individuals and small businesses under the ACA or let insurers discriminate against consumers with preexisting conditions for the next two years.

The Medical Association will continue to monitor the progress of this proposed legislation and is eager to work with lawmakers toward a positive solution.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Pres. Trump’s Executive Order Creates Confusion

Pres. Trump’s Executive Order Creates Confusion

Earlier this week, President Trump signed an executive order that could be a first step in dismantling the Affordable Care Act. About 20 health organizations have so far spoken out against the executive order arguing the action could weaken patient protections and destabilize the individual market.

President Trump’s executive order signed on Thursday, Oct. 12, does not implement any policies, but it does request federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor to develop regulations to expand the use of association health plans, which allow small businesses to join forces to purchase health coverage together, as well as to expand the definition of short-term insurance, which typically offers less coverage and comes with higher out-of-pocket costs.

The order issues three primary directives to federal agencies:

  • Consider ways to expand access to association health plans, potentially allowing employers to purchase insurance across state lines.
  • Consider expanding coverage through short-term health insurance plans, which are not subject to the Affordable Care Act’s regulations such as minimum coverage requirements.
  • Consider changes to health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) — employer-funded accounts that reimburse workers for healthcare expenses — to allow employers to make better use of them.

During a press conference, President Trump said expanding use of association health plans would increase competition and allow more small businesses to have the same purchasing options as larger employers. He said he also plans to eliminate the three-month limit on short-term health insurance plans.

“The Medical Association is in the process of reviewing the President’s Executive Order and is consulting with industry experts to get a full understanding of the downstream effects the order will have on patient care. There is some concern that the order could erode important patient protections, which would be a serious issue however the true impact is unclear at this point,” Executive Director Mark Jackson said.

The executive order does not make policy changes itself, any new rules will go through a notice and comment period that could take months.

In a decision that coincided with the executive order, the White House has confirmed that it will stop federal payments for cost-sharing reductions to health insurers. These payments help insurers pay out-of-pocket costs for low-income individuals purchasing coverage through the exchanges. If stopped, premiums could dramatically rise and cause insurance companies to leave the exchanges and challenge the decision in court. There’s confusion as to when the payments, which could total about $9 billion this year, would end.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

What Have You Done for Me Lately?

What Have You Done for Me Lately?

“What have the Medical Association and ALAPAC done for me lately?”

It’s a question posed to me often, in various forms, by physicians whom I’m asking to join the Medical Association and contribute to ALAPAC. It’s a tough one to reply to – not for a shortage of answers – but for the difficulty, even for a seasoned communicator like myself, to encapsulate succinctly.

I like analogies, so here’s one to start: a legislative session is like a surgical procedure; hundreds of things can go wrong, and getting through one without incident is deemed a success. To reiterate: when nothing bad happens in a legislative session that is a victory. Preposterous? Allow me to elaborate.

It’s been attributed to everyone from Thomas Jefferson to Mark Twain, but the old adage “no one’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session” certainly rings true. The Alabama Legislature may only be in session three days each week for three-and-a-half months (plus special sessions) a year, but just like with a surgical procedure, countless things can go wrong during that time.

Representing physicians at the legislature, the Medical Association is severely outnumbered. There are nearly 600 registered lobbyists in Alabama, many with clients – drug companies, health insurers, personal injury lawyers – interested in health care but whose corporate profits strategy or legislative goals are at odds with those of patients and physicians. I’ve heard physicians say they don’t like politics, that it’s dirty business. This is understandable but frankly, irrelevant. Feelings have no place here. Like it or not, politicians are in your business.

On average, a typical legislative session will see a combined 1,000 House and Senate bills introduced, with roughly 15 percent touching health care in some fashion. Over a four-year legislative cycle, that’s 600 “procedures” to get through with as few complications as possible. Some of these are initiatives the Medical Association supports, others will need tweaking through amendments or substitutes, still others will have no redeeming elements whatsoever and are outright opposed.

If that sounds simple in principle, it is not so in practice. To illustrate the complexity and unpredictability of an average legislative day, picture an emergency physician. At the State House, there is little warning of what daily catastrophes will present themselves or what will have to be triaged depending on severity. Committee testimony, one-on-one meetings with legislators, bill negotiations with opposing parties, these are all part of a typical legislative day. Getting through the day without any bad happenings is a success, even more so all 30 days of the session.

While it is the Medical Association’s role to lobby the legislature on issues important to physicians, it is the role of the Alabama Medical PAC (ALAPAC) to help elect candidates to office with whom physicians and the Medical Association can work on important health-related issues. Over just the past few legislative sessions alone, the Medical Association, with the help of ALAPAC-supported legislators, successfully saw passage of several important bills.

These include “virtual credit card” legislation to help medical practices from unknowingly getting hit with hidden processing fees in electronic payments from health insurers and RCOs; the chemical endangerment “fix” legislation protecting pregnant women and their doctors from prosecution for the issuance of legitimate prescriptions (after the courts issued a new interpretation of Alabama’s chemical endangerment of children law); and, direct primary care legislation, which ensures state government stays out of private contracts between physicians and their patients. The list also includes legislation related to increasing naloxone availability, establishing guidelines for interstate medical licensure, and preventing Medicaid cuts, to name but a few.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, other proposed legislation is so bad there is no “fixing” it, bills like the Patient Compensation System legislation from 2016. The PCS legislation would levy an $80 million tax increase on physicians to fund a new government-administered malpractice claims payout system that would deprive physicians and legitimately-injured patients of their legal rights, undo decades of medical liability reforms and make Alabama doctors appear – on the national claims database – to be practicing sub-standard medicine. This legislation was, with the assistance of ALAPAC-supported legislators, defeated.

In the same vein as the PCS bill, pharmaceutical legislation was introduced in 2017 that would (1) lower biologic pharmaceutical standards in Alabama law below those set by the FDA, (2) withhold critical health information from patients and their doctors and, (3) significantly increase administrative burdens on physicians. This legislation met the same fate as the PCS legislation, but both bills are expected to return in a future session. (Click here for a complete recap of the 2017 legislative session.)

Clearly, the Medical Association and ALAPAC have been hard at work for physicians and patients, from the primary care doctor to the sub-specialist. There is a natural tendency for physicians to associate and support their respective specialties, which they unequivocally should. At the same time however, the collective strength of a unified state medical society representing all physicians of all specialties and the patients they care for is much greater than any individual specialty on its own.

This article began with a question and so it is fitting to end with one: What have you done lately to help the Medical Association and ALAPAC succeed for you?

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

What If No One Was On Call…2017 Legislative Review

What If No One Was On Call…2017 Legislative Review

In times of illness, injury and emergency, patients depend on their physicians. But what if no one was on call? Public health would be in jeopardy. However, the same holds true during a legislative session. What would happen if the Medical Association was not on call, advocating for you and your patients at the Alabama Legislature? Keep reading to find out.

Moving Medicine Forward

Patients and their physicians want assurances about not only the quality of care provided, but also its continued availability, accessibility, and affordability. Patients want to make health decisions with their doctors, free from third-party interference. Continued progress toward these objectives requires constant vigilance in the legislative arena, where special interest groups seek to undermine physician autonomy, commoditize medicine and place barriers between physicians, their patients and the care their patients need.

If no one was on call… Alabama wouldn’t be the 20th state to enact Direct Primary Care legislation. DPC puts patients and their doctors back in control of patients’ health and helps the uninsured, the under-insured and those with high-deductible health plans. SB 94 was sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and Rep. Nathaniel Ledbetter (R-Rainsville).

If no one was on call… the Board of Medical Scholarship Awards could have seen its funding slashed but instead, the program retained its funding level of $1.4 million for 2018. The BMSA grants medical school loans to medical students and accepts as payment for the loan that student’s locating to a rural area to practice medicine. The BMSA is a critical tool to recruiting medical students to commit to practice in rural areas. As well, the economic footprint of every physician is at least $1 million, which improves both community health and local economies.

If no one was on call… Medicaid cuts could have been severe, possibly reducing access for patients within an already fragile system in which less than 20 percent of Alabama physicians participate. Due to work done during the 2016 second special session and the 2017 session, sufficient funds were made available for Medicaid without any scheduled cuts to physicians for 2018. Increasing Medicaid reimbursements to Medicare levels – a continued Medical Association priority – could further increase access to care for Medicaid patients.

Beating Back the Lawsuit Industry

Personal injury lawyers are constantly seeking new opportunities to sue doctors. While Alabama’s medical liability laws have fostered fairness in the courtroom and improved the legal climate, each year personal injury attorneys seek to undo parts of the very law that helps keep “jackpot justice” and frivolous suits in check.

If no one was on call… an $80 million tax increase on physicians to fund a new government-administered malpractice claims payout system called the Patients Compensation System could have passed. The PCS would administer damage claims for physical injury and death of patients allegedly sustained at the hands of physicians. Complaints against individual physicians would begin with a call to a state-run 1-800 line and would go before panels composed of trial lawyers, citizens and physicians to determine an outcome. In addition, any determinations of fault would be reported to the National Practitioner Databank. The Patient Compensation System would undo decades of medical tort reforms, which the Medical Association championed and is forced to defend from plaintiff lawyer attacks each session. The PCS deprives both patients and doctors of their legal rights.

If no one was on call… physicians could have been exposed to triple-damage lawsuits for honest Medicaid billing mistakes. The legislation would create new causes of civil action in state court for Medicaid “false claims.” The legislation would incentivize personal injury lawyers to seek out “whistleblowers” in medical clinics, hospitals and the like to pursue civil actions against physicians and others for alleged Medicaid fraud, with damages being tripled the actual loss to Medicaid. The standard in the bill would have allowed even honest billing mistakes to qualify as “Medicaid fraud,” creating new opportunities for lawsuits where honest mistakes could be penalized.

If no one was on call… physicians would have been held liable for the actions or inactions of midwives attending home births. While a lay midwife bill did pass this session establishing a State Board of Midwifery, the bill contains liability protections for physicians and also prohibitions on non-nurse midwives’ scope of practice, the types of pregnancies they may attend, and a requirement for midwives to report outcomes.

If no one was on call… the right to trial by jury, including jury selection and jury size, could have been manipulated in personal injury lawyers’ favor.

If no one was on call… physicians could have been held legally responsible for others’ mistakes, including home caregivers, medical device manufacturers and for individuals following or failing to follow DNR orders.

Protecting Public Health and Access to Quality Care

Every session, various pieces of legislation aimed at improving the health of Alabamians are proposed. At the same time however, many bills are also introduced that endanger public health and safety, like those where the legislature attempts to set standards for medical care, which force physicians and their staffs to adhere to non-medically established criteria, wasting health care dollars, wasting patients’ and physicians’ time and exposing physicians to new liability concerns.

If no one was on call… legislation could have passed to lower biologic pharmaceutical standards in state law below those set by the FDA, withhold critical health information from patients and their doctors, and significantly increase administrative burdens on physicians.

If no one was on call… allergists and other physicians who compound medications within their offices could have been shut down, limiting access to critical care for patients.

If no one was on call… numerous scope of practice expansions that endanger public health could have become law, including removing all physician oversight of clinical nurse specialists; lay midwives seeking allowance of their attending home births without restriction or regulation; podiatrists seeking to amputate, do surgery and administer anesthesia up the distal third of the tibia; and marriage and family therapists seeking to be allowed to diagnose and treat mental disorders as well as removing the prohibition on their prescribing drugs.

If no one was on call… state boards and agencies with no authority over medicine could have been allowed to increase medical practice costs through additional licensing and reporting requirements.

If no one was on call… legislation dictating medical standards and guidelines for treatment of pregnant women, the elderly and terminal patients could have been placed into bills covering various topics.

Other Bills of Interest

Rural physician tax credits… legislation to increase rural physician tax credits and thereby increase access to care for rural Alabamians did not pass but will be reintroduced next session.

Infectious Disease Elimination… legislation to establish infectious disease elimination pilot programs to mitigate the spread of certain diseases failed to garner support on the last legislative day.

Constitutional amendment proclaiming the State of Alabama’s stance on the rights of unborn children… legislation passed to allow Alabamians to vote at the November 2018 General Election whether to add an amendment to the state constitution to:

“Declare and affirm that it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, most importantly the right to life in all manners and measures appropriate and lawful…”

If ratified by the people in November 2018, this Amendment could have implications for women’s health physicians.

Coverage of autism spectrum disorder therapies… legislation passed to require health plans to cover ASD therapies, with some restrictions.

Portable DNR for minors… legislation establishing a portable DNR for minors to allow minors with terminal diseases to attend school activities failed to garner enough votes to pass on the last legislative day.

If the Medical Association was not on call at the legislature, countless bills expanding doctors’ liability, increasing physician taxes and setting standards of care into law could have passed. At the same time, positive strides in public health — like passage of the direct primary care legislation — would not have occurred. The Medical Association is Alabama physicians’ greatest resource in advocating for the practice of medicine and the patients they serve.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Association Voices Concern with MOC in Letter to ABMS

Association Voices Concern with MOC in Letter to ABMS

Earlier this year, the Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution formally opposing additional Maintenance of Certification requirements as dictated by the American Board of Medical Specialties and the American Osteopathic Association. While it was agreed that the need for continuing medical education to improve the quality of care, the expense and clinically irrelevant process of MOC often proved overly burdensome. Now, the Association has joined with other state associations to send a message to ABMS expressing concerns about MOC and have requested a meeting later this year to discuss the issues.

As discussions concerning MOC mounted during the June AMA meeting, a small group of national medical specialty society and state medical society CEOs furthered the discussion with a high-level summit that recently took place to discuss these problems, and a meeting this December with the American Board of Medical Specialties, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, and state medical societies to directly share our views and seek agreement on how to reshape the MOC process to the betterment of our physicians and the patients in their care.

In the letter to ABMS, the groups were quick to explain that the intention is not to diminish patient care or physician training. However, the letter addressed that not only had many state legislatures addressed the issue of maintenance of certification either successfully passing new laws or laws that were pending but that this trend of legislative interference was another threat to a physician’s right to professional self-regulation. Along with the exorbitant costs of the MOC process and the lack of transparent communication from certifying boards have damaged the integrity of the MOC brand, all of which presents an opportunity to realign the process.

The Medical Association has begun to address this situation, and with the formation of this new joint initiative, will continue to be active in discussions to create a long-term solution for MOC. The joint meeting is currently scheduled for early December.

Read the letter to ABMS

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Mylan Finalizes Settlement Agreement on Medicaid Rebate Classification for EpiPen® Auto-Injector

Mylan Finalizes Settlement Agreement on Medicaid Rebate Classification for EpiPen® Auto-Injector

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced an agreement with Mylan regarding the classification of EpiPen in which Mylan will reclassify EpiPen as a brand name drug consistent with the Medicaid statute and regulations. In addition, Mylan has agreed to use the correct reference price of the 3rd quarter of 1990 for the purpose of calculating inflationary payment rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate (MDR) program, saving the Medicaid program hundreds of millions of dollars. These changes will be effective retroactive to April 1, 2017.

“Mylan’s agreement with CMS to correctly classify EpiPen is a huge win for Medicaid beneficiaries and American taxpayers,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma. “Medicaid will no longer be overcharged for EpiPen, protecting access for Medicaid beneficiaries who rely on this life-saving drug while saving hundreds of millions of dollars. This announcement puts drug manufacturers on notice that CMS remains vigilant in our duty to protect the integrity of the Medicaid program.”

The settlement resolves claims relating to the classification of EpiPen® Auto-Injector and EpiPen Jr® Auto-Injector for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The question in the underlying matter was whether the EpiPen products were properly classified with CMS as a non-innovator drug under the applicable definition in the Medicaid Rebate statute and subject to the formula that is used to calculate rebates to Medicaid for such drugs. EpiPen Auto-Injector has been classified with CMS as a non-innovator drug since before Mylan acquired the product in 2007 based on longstanding written guidance from the federal government.

The settlement provides for resolution of all potential Medicaid rebate liability claims by the federal government, as well as potential claims by certain hospitals and other covered entities that participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The settlement allocates money to the Medicaid programs of all 50 states and establishes a framework for resolving all potential state Medicaid rebate liability claims within 60 days. In connection with the settlement, Mylan also has entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. The settlement does not contain an admission or finding of wrongdoing. Mylan will reclassify EpiPen Auto-Injector for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and pay the rebate applicable to innovator products effective as of April 1, 2017.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medical Association Joins 132 Medical Groups to Oppose H.R. 2276

Medical Association Joins 132 Medical Groups to Oppose H.R. 2276

The inclusion of audiologists in Medicare’s definition of “physician” will create confusion.

In May, legislation (H.R. 2276) was reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would inappropriately provide audiologists with unlimited direct access to Medicare patients without a physician referral and amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to include audiologists in the definition of “physician.” More than 132 medical groups and organizations, including the Medical Association and the Alabama Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgeons, strongly urge the U.S. House to oppose H.S. 2276.

Click here to read the letter to the U.S. House Leadership

Click here to read H.R. 2276

While audiologists are valued health professionals who work for and with physicians, they do not possess the medical training necessary to perform the same duties as physicians, nor are they able to provide patients with the medical diagnosis and treatment options they require. And, most audiologists practice in the same areas as M.D./D.O. physicians. So, claims that expanding the services provided by audiologists will somehow mitigate projected M.D./D.O. physician shortages are often unsubstantiated.

Bypassing a physician evaluation and referral can lead to missed diagnoses and inappropriate treatment that could cause lasting, and expensive, harm to patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has maintained a position that physician referral is a “key means by which the Medicare program assures that beneficiaries are receiving medically necessary services, and avoids potential payment for asymptomatic screening tests that are not covered by Medicare ….”

Notwithstanding the patient safety concerns associated with direct access, the inclusion of audiologists in Medicare’s definition of “physician” will create confusion regarding the qualifications and training of various health care providers. And, broadening the term “physician” to include non-physician healthcare providers encroaches on the expert status achieved by M.D./D.O. physicians. Audiologists are not physicians and should not be considered as such under the Medicare program.

Click here to read the letter to the U.S. House Leadership

Click here to read H.R. 2276

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

The Medical Association Supports Replacement of ACA with Workable Health Care System

The Medical Association Supports Replacement of ACA with Workable Health Care System

The Medical Association released its 2017 Legislative Agendas earlier this year, which were developed with guidance from the House of Delegates and great contribution from our physician members who participated in the 2017 Legislative Agenda Survey. The Medical Association has continued to express support for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and its replacement with an adequate system to protect not only physicians but their patients as well.

The U.S. Senate is engaged in deliberations on legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. So far these debates have one thing in common – they fail to meet the basic requirements of a solid health care plan, which does not further damage an already weakened Medicaid program or make it more difficult for low and moderate-income Americans to obtain affordable health insurance.

As from the beginning, Medical Association continues to support the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and replacement with a system that:

  • Includes meaningful tort reforms that maintain existing state protections
  • Preserves employer-based health insurance
  • Protects coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions
  • Protects coverage for dependents under age 26
  • With proper oversight, allows the sale of health insurance across state lines
  • Allows for deducting individual health insurance expenses on tax returns
  • Increases allowed contributions to health savings accounts
  • Ensures access for vulnerable populations
  • Ensures universal, catastrophic coverage
  • Does not increase uncompensated care
  • Does not require adherence with insurance requirements until insurance reimbursement begins
  • Reduces administrative and regulatory burdens

The disproportionate funding model dictated by the ACA has left most states, including Alabama, sorely underfunded. Medicaid is a critical component of our health care system, covering the young and elderly. Medicaid covers more than half of Alabama births and 47 percent of our children, as well as 60 percent of Alabama’s nursing home residents. Without full funding, the Medicaid program will collapse, leaving these individuals without coverage. While uncompensated care is delivered every day in all 67 counties of this state, without Medicaid, charity care needs could skyrocket, crippling the health care delivery system and potentially placing the burden on those with private health insurance through higher premiums and co-pays.

Now’s the time to fix our broken health care system to ensure access to care for our citizens and the ability for physicians to practice medicine without overwhelming federal burdens guiding the way. The Medical Association continues to work with our Congressional Delegation during these negotiations and urges them to work together toward the passage of a viable health care solution for our residents.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 13 of 15 «...101112131415