Dear Howard,
The past few days have been bittersweet for the health care justice movement. On Monday, the 12-member, bipartisan “super committee” announced a failure to reach agreement on further reduction of the deficit. The Medicaid program was a primary target in negotiations, and cuts would have been devastating to seniors living in nursing homes, people with disabilities who receive home- and community-based services, and children for whom the program is a lifeline.
Thanks in large part to your hard work—district office visits, phone calls, emails, tweets, and sign-on letters—people on Medicaid and Medicare were spared from harmful cuts. In the end, the impasse was a fundamental difference in philosophy over revenues. Republican members were determined to use the process to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans at a time when income inequality is on the rise and families are struggling to make ends meet. Unfortunately, the super committee’s failure to reach a deal means many programs important to low-income people (although not Medicaid) will see automatic cuts starting in 2013, on top of the $900 billion in cuts that Congress agreed to earlier this summer.
We all also received bad news yesterday that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners passed a resolution that would urge Congress and the Administration to exempt insurance agents and brokers from medical loss ratio calculations under the Affordable Care Act. Essentially, this recommendation would transfer more of consumers’ premium dollars away from actual medical care and weaken the protections that are a cornerstone of the law.
The events of this week foreshadow the battles we will see in the coming months. The news media and public dialogue will continue to be dominated by a conversation over our country’s values and our broader vision for the future. Will we, as a country, recommit ourselves to the American people and the essential elements—including access to health and health care—of the American dream? Or will we continue to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent and corporate tax loopholes at the expense of the most vulnerable among us?
When I sit down with my family tomorrow at the Thanksgiving table, I will be giving thanks for my loved ones, most especially my 27-month-old grandson, and for you. Your efforts—your dedication, hard work, and sacrifice—have been and will continue to be critical to protecting Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. There is a tremendous amount at stake in the coming year, and Families USA looks forward to working with you every step of the way.
In gratitude,
Ron Pollack
Executive Director
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
OLDER AMERICANS ACT
The stated purpose of the OAA is to ensure equal opportunity to the fair and free enjoyment of: adequate income in retirement; the best possible physical and mental health services without regard to economic status; suitable housing; restorative and long term care; opportunity for employment; retirement in health, honor, and dignity; civic, cultural, educational and recreational participation and contribution; efficient community services; immediate benefit from proven research knowledge; freedom, independence, and the exercise of self determination; and protection against abuse neglect and exploitation.[4]
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Deficit "Supercommittee").
Developments:
Nov. 3 Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said that he saw no possibility of extending the deadline for a powerful joint committee of Congress to recommend ways of reducing the federal budget deficit. He spoke a day after a leading Democrat suggested that the committee could ask for more time if the current stalemate persists.
Background
The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is a bipartisan, 12-member panel created by the deal struck by President Obama and Congressional leaders in late July 2011 to allow the government to raise the federal debt ceiling.
The agreement called for at least $2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years to offset the $2.4 trillion increase in the amount the Treasury Department is authorized to borrow. The reductions were to come in two steps, with $900 billion being decided upon immediately, based on spending cuts negotiated between Republicans and Democrats in the months of talks that led up to the pact.
The second round of reductions is the business of the Joint Select Committee, which some in Washington have taken to calling the “supercommittee.”
The stated goal of the panel — evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, the House and Senate — is to reduce federal budget deficits by a total of at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. It was given a deadline of Nov. 23, 2011. Any recommendations it makes are to be voted on immediately by both chambers of Congress, with no filibusters or amendments allowed.
If the committee cannot agree on a plan, or if Congress does not enact its recommendations by Dec. 23, the result would be $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts — called “trigger’' cuts — in January 2013, half of which would come from Pentagon programs. Medicaid and Medicare benefits would be exempt, although provider payments could be reduced.
The committee got underway in September under a cloud of pessimism. In late October, with less than a month till its deadline, a majority of Democrats on the panel offered up a plan that built on President Obama’s “grand bargain’' proposal that had been rejected by Republicans during the debt ceiling talks. It would cut a total of $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion, through cuts in the growth of federal entitlement programs, including Medicare, and more than $1 trillion in new tax revenues.
The proposal, which came after weeks of silence, has virtually no chance of winning approval from Republicans on the committee, who have repeatedly said they would not accept a package that included tax increases.
Democrats had concluded earlier in the fall that they might have — for the first time in many months — some sorts of advantages in the bargaining ahead.
Under the terms of the deal that created the committee, Republicans cannot threaten a default again to get their way, because the deal increased the debt limit enough to cover borrowing through 2012. Also, the automatic cuts in 2013 would hit military programs hard — an outcome Republicans are more eager than Democrats to avoid. And a stalemate could also lead to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts; Mr. Obama has vowed to sign an extension only for households with taxable income under $250,000.
Mr. Obama’s preference remains the “grand bargain” that eluded him with Mr. Boehner — with short-term stimulus measures and long-term deficit reduction greater than mandated for the committee, including higher revenues and savings from entitlement programs.
The slim hopes for a grand bargain rest on the parties’ mutual interest in overhauling the tax code to rein in tax breaks and using the new revenues to lower taxpayers’ rates. But Democrats and many budget groups say some of the new revenues should go to reduce deficits, while many Republicans insist that all must go to cutting tax rates.
Obama’s Deficit Plan
In September, President Obama outlined a plan for reducing the deficit by more than $3 trillion over 10 years.
His proposal called for $1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the most affluent taxpayers, closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct. The proposal also includes $580 billion in adjustments to health and entitlement programs, including $248 billion to Medicare and $72 billion to Medicaid. Administration officials said that the Medicare cuts would not come from an increase in the Medicare eligibility age. Tthe plan also counts a savings of $1.1 trillion from the ending of the American combat mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.
At the committee’s first meeting on Sept. 8, several Republicans said that entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were the main cause of annual deficits and should be the panel’s focus. Democrats have long resisted cuts to those programs, but during the debt ceiling talks President Obama said he was willing to make changes in them in return for increases in tax revenue.
And members of both parties were feeling pressure to address the long-term costs of programs like Medicare before the baby boom generation moves into retirement and starts consuming more benefits.
Going Beyond the Mandate
By mid-September, more pressure was building on the committee to “go big” — beyond its mandate to shave as much as $1.5 trillion from budget shortfalls over 10 years — even as doubts remained about the panel’s ability to find enough bipartisan agreement to meet even the original goal.
A group of at least 57 prominent business executives and former government officials signed a petition in support of a greater deficit reduction. Among them were former treasury secretaries, budget directors and economic advisers to eight presidents from Richard M. Nixon to Mr. Obama; former Congressional leaders; and executives of top companies. The letter reflects a broad sense of urgency in both parties, and among economists and businesses, that the nation must put in place long-range measures to shrink future deficits. At current spending levels, those deficits are expected to balloon over the next decade as the population ages and as health care costs rise.
The letter did not call for short-term job-creation measures like the tax cuts and infrastructure spending Mr. Obama proposed on Sept. 8, which would add to deficits initially. Even so, many of the signers, liberals and conservatives, called for such steps.
Who’s Who on the Panel
The committee’s members were appointed by the Senate majority and minority leaders, the speaker of the House and the House minority leader.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid named Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, co-chairwoman of the new committee and appointed two other Democratic senators, Max Baucus of Montana and John Kerry of Massachusetts, to the panel. Ms. Murray is chairwoman of the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Speaker John A. Boehner chose three senior Republican House memebrs: Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and Dave Camp and Fred Upton, both from Michigan. Mr. Hensarling, who is chairman of the House Republican Conference, will be co-chairman of the new panel. The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, chose Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Rob Portman of Ohio and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, named three members of her caucus’s leadership: Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat; Representative Xavier Becerra of California, vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus; and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
The deal that created the committee was criticized by some liberals in Congress as a “heads they win, tails we lose’' proposition, guaranteeing that a Republican refusal to consider tax increases would result in the spending cuts that Republicans consider the best approach to deficit reduction.
It was criticized by some conservatives — and by all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates — for allowing the possibility of tax increases, and for not cutting into entitlements. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits were all exempted from the automatic cuts.
Some members of both parties complained that the panel would usurp their authority to write legislation.
Within days of the deal being struck, both sides began to maneuver for advantage. A fight broke out specifically over whether the amount of deficit reduction should be calculated by comparison to current law, under which all of the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2012, or in comparison to proposals to extend most of the tax cuts, as Democrats want, or all of them, as Republicans propose. If current law is used, more cuts elsewhere would be needed to offset the loss of the revenues that would follow the expiration of the tax cuts.
Commissions in the Past
The options on the table have been studied by numerous expert panels, including several in the past year. The problem is not so much determining how to align the government’s revenues and spending; it is in reaching a compromise on the specific elements of a plan and then finding the political will to enact the necessary spending cuts, tax increases or both.
In the last six decades, Washington has turned to more than a dozen blue-ribbon panels to grapple with fiscal problems. These include the 1947-49 Hoover Commission, the 1982-84 Grace Commission and most recently, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bipartisan panel President Obama created by executive order in 2010 that included 12 sitting members of Congress.
The panels were often devised as a way to give political cover to policy makers so they could make unpopular changes to things like entitlements and tax rates. In most cases, though, Congress ignored the proposals or deferred action.
Even the panel usually held up as the exception that proved the rule, the 1981-83 Greenspan Commission set up to revamp Social Security, was largely a failure.
According to an unpublished memoir written by one of the now-deceased members of the commission, the panel deadlocked and then splintered. President Reagan and the House leadership were able to eke out a deal to save Social Security only by engaging in separate negotiations just as the entitlement program was about to go bankrupt.
Nov. 3 Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said that he saw no possibility of extending the deadline for a powerful joint committee of Congress to recommend ways of reducing the federal budget deficit. He spoke a day after a leading Democrat suggested that the committee could ask for more time if the current stalemate persists.
Background
The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is a bipartisan, 12-member panel created by the deal struck by President Obama and Congressional leaders in late July 2011 to allow the government to raise the federal debt ceiling.
The agreement called for at least $2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years to offset the $2.4 trillion increase in the amount the Treasury Department is authorized to borrow. The reductions were to come in two steps, with $900 billion being decided upon immediately, based on spending cuts negotiated between Republicans and Democrats in the months of talks that led up to the pact.
The second round of reductions is the business of the Joint Select Committee, which some in Washington have taken to calling the “supercommittee.”
The stated goal of the panel — evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, the House and Senate — is to reduce federal budget deficits by a total of at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. It was given a deadline of Nov. 23, 2011. Any recommendations it makes are to be voted on immediately by both chambers of Congress, with no filibusters or amendments allowed.
If the committee cannot agree on a plan, or if Congress does not enact its recommendations by Dec. 23, the result would be $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts — called “trigger’' cuts — in January 2013, half of which would come from Pentagon programs. Medicaid and Medicare benefits would be exempt, although provider payments could be reduced.
The committee got underway in September under a cloud of pessimism. In late October, with less than a month till its deadline, a majority of Democrats on the panel offered up a plan that built on President Obama’s “grand bargain’' proposal that had been rejected by Republicans during the debt ceiling talks. It would cut a total of $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion, through cuts in the growth of federal entitlement programs, including Medicare, and more than $1 trillion in new tax revenues.
The proposal, which came after weeks of silence, has virtually no chance of winning approval from Republicans on the committee, who have repeatedly said they would not accept a package that included tax increases.
Democrats had concluded earlier in the fall that they might have — for the first time in many months — some sorts of advantages in the bargaining ahead.
Under the terms of the deal that created the committee, Republicans cannot threaten a default again to get their way, because the deal increased the debt limit enough to cover borrowing through 2012. Also, the automatic cuts in 2013 would hit military programs hard — an outcome Republicans are more eager than Democrats to avoid. And a stalemate could also lead to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts; Mr. Obama has vowed to sign an extension only for households with taxable income under $250,000.
Mr. Obama’s preference remains the “grand bargain” that eluded him with Mr. Boehner — with short-term stimulus measures and long-term deficit reduction greater than mandated for the committee, including higher revenues and savings from entitlement programs.
The slim hopes for a grand bargain rest on the parties’ mutual interest in overhauling the tax code to rein in tax breaks and using the new revenues to lower taxpayers’ rates. But Democrats and many budget groups say some of the new revenues should go to reduce deficits, while many Republicans insist that all must go to cutting tax rates.
Obama’s Deficit Plan
In September, President Obama outlined a plan for reducing the deficit by more than $3 trillion over 10 years.
His proposal called for $1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the most affluent taxpayers, closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct. The proposal also includes $580 billion in adjustments to health and entitlement programs, including $248 billion to Medicare and $72 billion to Medicaid. Administration officials said that the Medicare cuts would not come from an increase in the Medicare eligibility age. Tthe plan also counts a savings of $1.1 trillion from the ending of the American combat mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.
At the committee’s first meeting on Sept. 8, several Republicans said that entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were the main cause of annual deficits and should be the panel’s focus. Democrats have long resisted cuts to those programs, but during the debt ceiling talks President Obama said he was willing to make changes in them in return for increases in tax revenue.
And members of both parties were feeling pressure to address the long-term costs of programs like Medicare before the baby boom generation moves into retirement and starts consuming more benefits.
Going Beyond the Mandate
By mid-September, more pressure was building on the committee to “go big” — beyond its mandate to shave as much as $1.5 trillion from budget shortfalls over 10 years — even as doubts remained about the panel’s ability to find enough bipartisan agreement to meet even the original goal.
A group of at least 57 prominent business executives and former government officials signed a petition in support of a greater deficit reduction. Among them were former treasury secretaries, budget directors and economic advisers to eight presidents from Richard M. Nixon to Mr. Obama; former Congressional leaders; and executives of top companies. The letter reflects a broad sense of urgency in both parties, and among economists and businesses, that the nation must put in place long-range measures to shrink future deficits. At current spending levels, those deficits are expected to balloon over the next decade as the population ages and as health care costs rise.
The letter did not call for short-term job-creation measures like the tax cuts and infrastructure spending Mr. Obama proposed on Sept. 8, which would add to deficits initially. Even so, many of the signers, liberals and conservatives, called for such steps.
Who’s Who on the Panel
The committee’s members were appointed by the Senate majority and minority leaders, the speaker of the House and the House minority leader.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid named Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, co-chairwoman of the new committee and appointed two other Democratic senators, Max Baucus of Montana and John Kerry of Massachusetts, to the panel. Ms. Murray is chairwoman of the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Speaker John A. Boehner chose three senior Republican House memebrs: Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and Dave Camp and Fred Upton, both from Michigan. Mr. Hensarling, who is chairman of the House Republican Conference, will be co-chairman of the new panel. The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, chose Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Rob Portman of Ohio and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, named three members of her caucus’s leadership: Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat; Representative Xavier Becerra of California, vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus; and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
The deal that created the committee was criticized by some liberals in Congress as a “heads they win, tails we lose’' proposition, guaranteeing that a Republican refusal to consider tax increases would result in the spending cuts that Republicans consider the best approach to deficit reduction.
It was criticized by some conservatives — and by all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates — for allowing the possibility of tax increases, and for not cutting into entitlements. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits were all exempted from the automatic cuts.
Some members of both parties complained that the panel would usurp their authority to write legislation.
Within days of the deal being struck, both sides began to maneuver for advantage. A fight broke out specifically over whether the amount of deficit reduction should be calculated by comparison to current law, under which all of the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2012, or in comparison to proposals to extend most of the tax cuts, as Democrats want, or all of them, as Republicans propose. If current law is used, more cuts elsewhere would be needed to offset the loss of the revenues that would follow the expiration of the tax cuts.
Commissions in the Past
The options on the table have been studied by numerous expert panels, including several in the past year. The problem is not so much determining how to align the government’s revenues and spending; it is in reaching a compromise on the specific elements of a plan and then finding the political will to enact the necessary spending cuts, tax increases or both.
In the last six decades, Washington has turned to more than a dozen blue-ribbon panels to grapple with fiscal problems. These include the 1947-49 Hoover Commission, the 1982-84 Grace Commission and most recently, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bipartisan panel President Obama created by executive order in 2010 that included 12 sitting members of Congress.
The panels were often devised as a way to give political cover to policy makers so they could make unpopular changes to things like entitlements and tax rates. In most cases, though, Congress ignored the proposals or deferred action.
Even the panel usually held up as the exception that proved the rule, the 1981-83 Greenspan Commission set up to revamp Social Security, was largely a failure.
According to an unpublished memoir written by one of the now-deceased members of the commission, the panel deadlocked and then splintered. President Reagan and the House leadership were able to eke out a deal to save Social Security only by engaging in separate negotiations just as the entitlement program was about to go bankrupt.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Debt Ceiling Compromise and Super Committee
Legislative Update
At the beginning of August, President Obama and Congressional leaders passed a bipartisan debt ceiling compromise. This package gives the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion and eliminates the need for another increase until 2013. This was an important political move for those who wanted to avoid another vote until after 2012 election.
The measure cuts $1 trillion in domestic and defense spending over 10 years. While this legislation does not include any upfront cuts to Medicaid, there are still serious lingering threats. The proposal creates a bipartisan committee of 12 members of Congress, tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts through entitlements (including Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security) and tax reforms. This “super committee” will need a majority vote to pass a recommendation along to Congress before Thanksgiving of this year. Congress will be required to vote on the committee’s recommendations before Christmas. If the committee comes to a gridlock, an enforcement mechanism will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts, split evenly between domestic and defense spending. However, the enforcement protects low-income programs, such as Medicaid, as well as Social Security and Medicare from cuts. For more information, click here.The super committee held its first logistical meeting on September 8, and its first public hearing on September 13.
The 12 members are Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), John Kerry (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), as well as Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Dave Camp (R-MI), and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). If one of the members is from your district or state, you can reach them by setting up visits in his or her local district offices, making phone calls, and/or writing a letter
At the beginning of August, President Obama and Congressional leaders passed a bipartisan debt ceiling compromise. This package gives the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion and eliminates the need for another increase until 2013. This was an important political move for those who wanted to avoid another vote until after 2012 election.
The measure cuts $1 trillion in domestic and defense spending over 10 years. While this legislation does not include any upfront cuts to Medicaid, there are still serious lingering threats. The proposal creates a bipartisan committee of 12 members of Congress, tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts through entitlements (including Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security) and tax reforms. This “super committee” will need a majority vote to pass a recommendation along to Congress before Thanksgiving of this year. Congress will be required to vote on the committee’s recommendations before Christmas. If the committee comes to a gridlock, an enforcement mechanism will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts, split evenly between domestic and defense spending. However, the enforcement protects low-income programs, such as Medicaid, as well as Social Security and Medicare from cuts. For more information, click here.The super committee held its first logistical meeting on September 8, and its first public hearing on September 13.
The 12 members are Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), John Kerry (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), as well as Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Dave Camp (R-MI), and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). If one of the members is from your district or state, you can reach them by setting up visits in his or her local district offices, making phone calls, and/or writing a letter
Sunday, June 19, 2011
CLASS ACT
When will the CLASS Act begin?
While provisions of the CLASS Act become effective in 2011, there are so many details to be worked out that most experts don't expect the plan will actually become available until 2013. (The law says details are not due until the final months of 2012.
Costs have to be determined. Employers must be given sufficient time to educate employees and prepare to start withholding premiums from employee paychecks. Systems have to be in place to accept and keep track of monies withheld from participants.
Following implementation and withholding of the first payments from employees' paychecks, there is a five-year waiting period during which premiums must be paid before the participant becomes eligible to receive benefits. As a result, the earliest anyone could be receiving CLASS benefits may be as late as 2018.
back to top
Who will pay - will it cost me money?
CLASS is intended to be a voluntary plan primarily offered by employers and paid for by employees. Or simply stated, money will be withheld from individual paychecks -- similar to the way Social Security (FICA) tax payments are withheld from paychecks.
There are provisions to make the CLASS offering available to others who may be self-employed or who may not have access to the plan through an employer. These also will have to be defined and systems established.
Congress made CLASS an "opt out" plan. This is an important point that people need to be aware of. Unlike Social Security or Medicare that are mandatory, CLASS is a "voluntary, opt-out" plan. If that sounds confusing, it is. Read the question below regarding "opt out".
back to top
While provisions of the CLASS Act become effective in 2011, there are so many details to be worked out that most experts don't expect the plan will actually become available until 2013. (The law says details are not due until the final months of 2012.
Costs have to be determined. Employers must be given sufficient time to educate employees and prepare to start withholding premiums from employee paychecks. Systems have to be in place to accept and keep track of monies withheld from participants.
Following implementation and withholding of the first payments from employees' paychecks, there is a five-year waiting period during which premiums must be paid before the participant becomes eligible to receive benefits. As a result, the earliest anyone could be receiving CLASS benefits may be as late as 2018.
back to top
Who will pay - will it cost me money?
CLASS is intended to be a voluntary plan primarily offered by employers and paid for by employees. Or simply stated, money will be withheld from individual paychecks -- similar to the way Social Security (FICA) tax payments are withheld from paychecks.
There are provisions to make the CLASS offering available to others who may be self-employed or who may not have access to the plan through an employer. These also will have to be defined and systems established.
Congress made CLASS an "opt out" plan. This is an important point that people need to be aware of. Unlike Social Security or Medicare that are mandatory, CLASS is a "voluntary, opt-out" plan. If that sounds confusing, it is. Read the question below regarding "opt out".
back to top
Thursday, June 16, 2011
new federal support for states to develop and upgrade Medicaid IT systems and systems for enrollment in state exchanges
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343
HHS announces new federal support for states to develop and upgrade Medicaid IT systems and systems for enrollment in state exchanges
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced two steps to help states assure a simple and seamless enrollment experience for consumers who qualify for Medicaid or who are shopping for health insurance in the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.
First, HHS proposed new federal funding that will be available to all states to streamline and upgrade their Medicaid eligibility systems in preparation for the changes resulting from the Affordable Care Act in 2014. Second, HHS announced guidance to help states design and implement the information technology (IT) needed to establish exchanges. These systems will help enroll people who qualify for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), tax credits or cost-sharing reductions available through the Affordable Care Act.
These prudent, efficient technology investments will support a simple, coordinated, consumer-oriented system for individuals, families and businesses to sign up for the health insurance plan that they choose. They complement the competitive funding announcement released on October 29, to create cooperative agreements with up to five states to create models for IT infrastructure that all states can use.
As states prepare for 2014, they have requested early guidance and funding assistance for their technology projects, particularly with respect to eligibility and enrollment systems.
“The resources and guidance announced today are an important next step in developing seamless systems of coverage and ensuring effective and efficient implementation of health insurance exchanges and a modernized Medicaid program,” said Cindy Mann, CMS deputy administrator and director for the Center for Medicaid, CHIP and Survey and Certification. “Building a smooth customer experience requires a foundation of integrated eligibility systems for health insurance assistance at both the state and federal levels and the resources and guidance announced today supports this foundation.”
“Individuals will seek health care coverage without necessarily knowing whether they are looking for an exchange plan, a Medicaid or a CHIP plan,” said Joel Ario, director of the Office of Health Insurance Exchanges. “Effective and efficient data exchange between state and federal health programs is critical to achieving this one stop shopping experience and today’s guidance establishes the framework and approach that will make this seamless coordination possible.”
This announcement includes:
•Federal Funding for Medicaid Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Activities: A notice of proposed rulemaking has been published in the Federal Register that proposes that Medicaid eligibility systems will potentially be eligible for an enhanced federal matching rate of 90 percent for design and development of new systems and a 75 percent federal matching rate for maintenance and operations. This represents a significant increase above the 50 percent match rate currently available for these systems. States must meet a set of performance standards and conditions, including seamless coordination with the exchanges, in order for their Medicaid technology investments to qualify for the enhanced match. Under the proposed rule, the 90 percent matching rate will be available for eligibility systems until December 31, 2015, and the 75 percent match for such systems will be available beyond that date, assuming the conditions continue to be met. The state exchange grants will provide 100 percent support for exchange IT infrastructure and now this 90 percent matching rate will be available for the exchange-related Medicaid eligibility system changes as well as for those Medicaid system changes not directly related to the exchanges. The proposed regulation can be accessed at http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/11/08/2010-27971/medicaid-federal-funding-for-medicaid-eligibility-determination-and-enrollment-activities.
•New IT Guidance: CMS and the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight are issuing initial technical guidance that will help states decide how they will design, develop, and implement new or improved IT systems for the new health insurance exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP. Further IT guidance forthcoming following continuing collaboration with states. The guidance is available at http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/health_insurance_exchange_info_tech_sys.html.
To find the joint guidance or NPRM, go to www.HealthCare.gov/center/regulations/index.html.
###
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press materials are available at http://www.hhs.gov/news.
Last revised: January 03, 2011
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343
HHS announces new federal support for states to develop and upgrade Medicaid IT systems and systems for enrollment in state exchanges
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced two steps to help states assure a simple and seamless enrollment experience for consumers who qualify for Medicaid or who are shopping for health insurance in the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.
First, HHS proposed new federal funding that will be available to all states to streamline and upgrade their Medicaid eligibility systems in preparation for the changes resulting from the Affordable Care Act in 2014. Second, HHS announced guidance to help states design and implement the information technology (IT) needed to establish exchanges. These systems will help enroll people who qualify for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), tax credits or cost-sharing reductions available through the Affordable Care Act.
These prudent, efficient technology investments will support a simple, coordinated, consumer-oriented system for individuals, families and businesses to sign up for the health insurance plan that they choose. They complement the competitive funding announcement released on October 29, to create cooperative agreements with up to five states to create models for IT infrastructure that all states can use.
As states prepare for 2014, they have requested early guidance and funding assistance for their technology projects, particularly with respect to eligibility and enrollment systems.
“The resources and guidance announced today are an important next step in developing seamless systems of coverage and ensuring effective and efficient implementation of health insurance exchanges and a modernized Medicaid program,” said Cindy Mann, CMS deputy administrator and director for the Center for Medicaid, CHIP and Survey and Certification. “Building a smooth customer experience requires a foundation of integrated eligibility systems for health insurance assistance at both the state and federal levels and the resources and guidance announced today supports this foundation.”
“Individuals will seek health care coverage without necessarily knowing whether they are looking for an exchange plan, a Medicaid or a CHIP plan,” said Joel Ario, director of the Office of Health Insurance Exchanges. “Effective and efficient data exchange between state and federal health programs is critical to achieving this one stop shopping experience and today’s guidance establishes the framework and approach that will make this seamless coordination possible.”
This announcement includes:
•Federal Funding for Medicaid Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Activities: A notice of proposed rulemaking has been published in the Federal Register that proposes that Medicaid eligibility systems will potentially be eligible for an enhanced federal matching rate of 90 percent for design and development of new systems and a 75 percent federal matching rate for maintenance and operations. This represents a significant increase above the 50 percent match rate currently available for these systems. States must meet a set of performance standards and conditions, including seamless coordination with the exchanges, in order for their Medicaid technology investments to qualify for the enhanced match. Under the proposed rule, the 90 percent matching rate will be available for eligibility systems until December 31, 2015, and the 75 percent match for such systems will be available beyond that date, assuming the conditions continue to be met. The state exchange grants will provide 100 percent support for exchange IT infrastructure and now this 90 percent matching rate will be available for the exchange-related Medicaid eligibility system changes as well as for those Medicaid system changes not directly related to the exchanges. The proposed regulation can be accessed at http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/11/08/2010-27971/medicaid-federal-funding-for-medicaid-eligibility-determination-and-enrollment-activities.
•New IT Guidance: CMS and the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight are issuing initial technical guidance that will help states decide how they will design, develop, and implement new or improved IT systems for the new health insurance exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP. Further IT guidance forthcoming following continuing collaboration with states. The guidance is available at http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/health_insurance_exchange_info_tech_sys.html.
To find the joint guidance or NPRM, go to www.HealthCare.gov/center/regulations/index.html.
###
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press materials are available at http://www.hhs.gov/news.
Last revised: January 03, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
“Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act,”
H.R. 5, called the would shield nursing homes, hospitals, drug and medical device companies, and doctors from accountability when their misconduct harms or kills patients.
Preventable mistakes by the medical industry kill hundreds of thousands of people each year and injure millions more.
But instead of proposing reforms to prevent needless deaths and injuries, H.R. 5 would make it harder for patients to hold wrongdoers accountable, regardless of how egregious their misconduct is or how severely they have injured patients.
Preventable mistakes by the medical industry kill hundreds of thousands of people each year and injure millions more.
But instead of proposing reforms to prevent needless deaths and injuries, H.R. 5 would make it harder for patients to hold wrongdoers accountable, regardless of how egregious their misconduct is or how severely they have injured patients.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
1. The United States health care
1. The United States
> Annual Health Care Costs Per Capita: 16% (the most)
> Active Doctors Per 1,000 People: 2.43 (eighth fewest)
> Average Length of Hospital Stay: 5.5 days (ninth shortest)
> Debt as % of GDP (2010): 68.9%
> Average Life Expectancy:77.9 years (14th shortest)
The United States has far and away the least effective health care system in the OECD. Each year, the country spends $7,538 per person on health care, the equivalent of 16% of our entire GDP. This is nearly triple what Japan spends per person. Life expectancy in the United States, however, is 77.9 years, which is the eighth worst among the 34 OECD countries. Japan has the highest, at 82.7 years. Relative to the other ranked nations, the U.S. government spends the least as a percentage of total costs on health care, while American citizens pay the second most out of pocket, an average of $912 per year. Pharmaceuticals cost the U.S. an average of $897 per capita, the most spent in any country in the OECD. Unlike nations like Belgium and Germany, these massive costs per person do not yield appropriately high levels of care. The U.S. has the third-fewest hospital beds per person, behind only Turkey and Mexico. Americans also have the fifth-fewest doctor consultations per year. One likely candidate for the country’s terrible life expectancy despite massive costs is obesity, which is well known to be linked to a variety of health complications. While we only have data for 11 OECD countries, the United States has by far the highest recorded rate: nearly 34% of adults are considered unhealthily overweight. This is exactly ten times the rate in Japan – just 3.4%. And, this obesity and the problems it brings probably raise the cost to care for unhealthy people in the last year or two of their lives when they are troubled by the diseases related to their lifestyles.
Click Here for The Five Most Efficient Healthcare Systems
Read more: Who Lives the Longest – Countries With the Most and Least Effective Healthcare - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/04/19/who-lives-the-longest-countries-with-the-most-and-least-effective-healthcare/#ixzz1JyspMKVd
> Annual Health Care Costs Per Capita: 16% (the most)
> Active Doctors Per 1,000 People: 2.43 (eighth fewest)
> Average Length of Hospital Stay: 5.5 days (ninth shortest)
> Debt as % of GDP (2010): 68.9%
> Average Life Expectancy:77.9 years (14th shortest)
The United States has far and away the least effective health care system in the OECD. Each year, the country spends $7,538 per person on health care, the equivalent of 16% of our entire GDP. This is nearly triple what Japan spends per person. Life expectancy in the United States, however, is 77.9 years, which is the eighth worst among the 34 OECD countries. Japan has the highest, at 82.7 years. Relative to the other ranked nations, the U.S. government spends the least as a percentage of total costs on health care, while American citizens pay the second most out of pocket, an average of $912 per year. Pharmaceuticals cost the U.S. an average of $897 per capita, the most spent in any country in the OECD. Unlike nations like Belgium and Germany, these massive costs per person do not yield appropriately high levels of care. The U.S. has the third-fewest hospital beds per person, behind only Turkey and Mexico. Americans also have the fifth-fewest doctor consultations per year. One likely candidate for the country’s terrible life expectancy despite massive costs is obesity, which is well known to be linked to a variety of health complications. While we only have data for 11 OECD countries, the United States has by far the highest recorded rate: nearly 34% of adults are considered unhealthily overweight. This is exactly ten times the rate in Japan – just 3.4%. And, this obesity and the problems it brings probably raise the cost to care for unhealthy people in the last year or two of their lives when they are troubled by the diseases related to their lifestyles.
Click Here for The Five Most Efficient Healthcare Systems
Read more: Who Lives the Longest – Countries With the Most and Least Effective Healthcare - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/04/19/who-lives-the-longest-countries-with-the-most-and-least-effective-healthcare/#ixzz1JyspMKVd
Monday, April 11, 2011
Fair Housing Month
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced the launch of a national media campaign to kick off Fair Housing Month, celebrated across the country each April to commemorate the passage of the Fair Housing Act. The "Live Free" campaign will educate the public and housing providers about their fair housing rights and responsibilities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
