Clyde Boyce has been hospitalized 14 times in the past four years.
Boyce, 61, survived two strokes and five operations to unblock arteries around his heart, including three procedures in which doctors propped open his blood vessels with stents. He takes 18 pills a day and gets injections every two weeks with a powerful drug to lower cholesterol.
Yet the disease that came closest to taking Boyce’s life wasn’t a heart condition. It was depression, which led him to attempt suicide twice in the year after his first surgery.
One in 5 people hospitalized for heart attack or chest pain develop major depression — about four times the rate in the general population, according to the American Heart Association. One in 3 stroke survivors become depressed, along with up to half of those who undergo heart bypass surgery.
Heart disease patients who become depressed are twice as likely to die within the following decade as other patients, according to an unpublished study presented in March at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting.This KHN story also ran on CNN.com. It can be republished for free (details).
Depression increased the risk of death more than any other risk factor in the study — even smoking, said lead author Heidi May, a cardiovascular epidemiologist at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City.
Relatively few heart patients die from suicide.
Most often, depressed heart attack survivors die of physical causes, partly because they’re less motivated to take care of themselves and take medication as directed, said Dr. Martha Gulati, a spokeswoman for the American College of Cardiology.
People suffering from depression are also more likely to smoke but often less likely to exercise and follow a healthy diet than those who are not depressed, Gulati said.
“You may be told to change your diet, but if you’re depressed, you may think, ‘This is too overwhelming. I can’t even process this information right now,’ ” said Kim Smolderen, an assistant professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
The American Heart Association has recommended that cardiologists screen all heart attack patients for depression, using a short questionnaire, since 2008.
Yet nearly a decade later, relatively few cardiologists screen patients for depression, Smolderen said. In May, she published a study in Circulation of younger heart attack survivors, most of whom were women, showing that only 42 percent of depressed heart attack patients received treatment.
Overall, only half of all Americans diagnosed with depression receive care, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.
Many cardiologists say they don’t have the time or the expertise to handle mental health care, Smolderen said. Critics note there’s little to no evidence that depression screening prevents additional heart attacks.
Yet many doctors also fail to refer patients to cardiac rehabilitation — a program of supervised exercise and education — which has been shown to both reduce depression and help prevent heart attacks and deaths, according to a 2015 study in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Although the American Heart Association strongly recommends cardiac rehab, doctors refer only 2 out of 3 heart attack survivors for the program, the study found.
A fraction of patients referred to the program — which involves three sessions a week for 12 weeks — actually show up. Due to cost and other barriers — such as long drives to hospital rehab centers — just 23 percent of patients attended one or more sessions, and 5 percent completed all 36 recommended sessions, the study found.
Cardiac rehab programs include stress management and teach relaxation techniques and coping skills similar to those used in some types of depression therapy. The programs can reduce the risks of heart attack more than standard rehab.
In a three-year study published in Circulation last year, which included heart patients ages 36 to 84, nearly half of patients who didn’t attend cardiac rehab died or had a heart attack, stroke or hospitalization due to chest pain, compared with 33 percent of those who attended rehab.
Among those whose rehab included stress management, only 18 percent suffered one of these heart-related complications, the study found.
Ignoring The Warning Signs
Boyce — who said depression sent him into rages that tested his marriage — said no one screened him for mental illness after his heart procedures, although he had suffered several debilitating depressions since adolescence.
He wasn’t prescribed antidepressants, Boyce said, until after his first suicide attempt.
“The system failed him,” said psychologist Barry Jacobs, a spokesman for the American Heart Association, when he heard Boyce’s story. “What you’re describing is not the way it’s supposed to work.”
After Boyce’s second heart procedure, he stopped taking his heart medications for five days — a move that his doctors viewed as a suicide attempt. His doctor committed him to a state psychiatric hospital for almost a week, prescribed medication and referred him to a psychiatrist.
Yet Boyce’s depression deepened as the bad health news piled up. Doctors diagnosed heart rhythm problems that required a pacemaker; congestive heart failure, caused when weakened heart muscle allows fluid to build up in the lungs; as well as asthmatic bronchitis, which affects the lungs. Boyce began to dread that he would suffer a fate similar to his mother, who died after six months in a coma, brought on by a long battle with heart disease.
A year after his first suicide attempt, Boyce tried to overdose on prescription medication. His wife found him and took him to the hospital, where doctors committed him to a psychiatric ward.
“Everything was happening so fast,” said Boyce, a former advertising executive from Murchison, Texas, who retired due to his health problems. “I was just convinced I was going to die. I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to end up on a ventilator, unconscious, just like my mother.’ ”
Boyce received help from a variety of sources: medication; counseling with a psychologist; a “mindfulness” stress reduction program, which borrows techniques used in meditation; and cardiac rehabilitation.
Exercise helped him feel stronger and less disabled, Boyce said.
“I do think the rehab raised my spirits … feeling like I could still do some things,” Boyce said.
What helped Boyce turn the corner, he said, was a conversation with God.
“It was the night before my third or fourth operation, and for some reason, I was sure I was not going to live through it,” Boyce said. “I said, ‘God, all I ask is that you give me one more day, and I will try to be a better man every day.’”
Boyce lost his fear of death. Although he occasionally still gets depressed, Boyce said, he’s able to manage his fears and anxieties better than in the past.
An Expensive Problem To Ignore
Cardiologists are divided about whether to screen heart patients for depression, but many primary care doctors have embraced the idea, said Dr. Ken Duckworth, medical director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
Both the American Academy of Family Physicians and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an expert panel that advises Congress on health care, now recommend that doctors screen all adults for depression. The family physician group also singles out heart attack survivors for depression screening.
Studies increasingly suggest that the most effective care comes from addressing physical and mental health conditions together, rather than forcing frail patients to make separate trips to a variety of specialists, Duckworth said.
Successful approaches have involved “packages of care,” rather than individual services, said Dr. Bruce Rollman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
The team approach is key.
A mild decrease in depression led to a big decrease in cost.Bruce Rollman, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
In an approach called collaborative care, mental health nurses or social workers serve as care managers, who reach out directly to patients, often by phone, to educate them about their disease, suggest ways to manage their depression and make sure that treatments are working, said Dr. Mary Whooley, director of cardiac rehabilitation at the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
Care managers work with primary care doctors to quickly adjust patients’ medications or other treatments as needed. They consult with a psychiatrist, often over the phone, Whooley said.
“You can’t stay home and get depressed … they won’t let you,” said Dr. Anita Everett, president of the American Psychiatric Association. “They reach out to you.”
A 2014 study in JAMA Internal Medicine found that collaborative care could be delivered over the phone. Patients in the study had blocked arteries, heart rhythm problems or heart failure.
Even on the phone, care managers “develop a trusted relationship with our patients,” said study co-author Dr. Bruce Rollman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
An earlier study of collaborative care, which focused on patients who had undergone bypass surgery, found that telephone care not only improved depression, quality of life and patients’ physical functioning, it saved over $2,000 a year per patient. Rollman is now studying ways to treat depression and heart failure together.
Keeping depression under control can save money if patients stay healthy and spend less time in the hospital, Rollman said.
Depression costs the U.S. more than $210 billion a year, with much of the cost coming from reduced productivity at work, according to a 2015 study.
“There are very, very few things in health care that save money,” Rollman said. “A mild decrease in depression led to a big decrease in cost.”
Officials at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health Plan were impressed enough by the results to include depression screening as part of a checklist of care for patients who are sent home after a heart attack.
Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans age 65 and older, began paying doctors to deliver collaborative care in January. Medicare has covered depression screenings in primary care settings since 2012.
In that time, Medicare payments for depression screening have grown from $1.7 million a year to $9.5 million a year, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis. While those screenings make a small fraction of Medicare’s annual budget of $646.2 billion, Duckworth called the services “a noteworthy trend in the right direction.”
Elizabeth Lucas contributed to this story.
In a landmark report, scientists have endorsed three strategies for preventing dementia and cognitive decline associated with normal aging — being physically active, engaging in cognitive training and controlling high blood pressure.
This is the first time experts convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have deemed scientific evidence strong enough to suggest that preventing dementia and age-related cognitive decline might be possible.
Seven years ago, in a separate report issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, scientists said they couldn’t recommend any interventions to forestall or slow cognitive deterioration because state-of-the-art science at that time didn’t offer enough support.
Now there’s a considerably larger body of research to draw upon. And while findings are still far from definitive, “we found encouraging evidence that supports the value of several interventions,” said Story Landis, vice chair of the 17-member panel that prepared the report and director emeritus of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.NAVIGATING AGING
Navigating Aging focuses on medical issues and advice associated with aging and end-of-life care, helping America’s 45 million seniors and their families navigate the health care system.
To contact Judith with a question or comment, click here.
For more KHN coverage of aging, click here.
That doesn’t mean the strategies are guaranteed to protect brain health. “You can do everything right and still get dementia in later life,” said Dr. Kenneth Langa, a panel member and professor of internal medicine, gerontology and health management and policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Nor does it mean these are the only interventions that offer promise. Managing depression, controlling diabetes and high cholesterol, engaging in social activities, getting adequate sleep, eating a healthful diet, taking disease-modifying treatments for dementia (if and when they become available) and getting enough vitamin B12 and folic acid also appear worthwhile, though more research is needed before those tactics can be formally recommended, the NAS report said.
Addressing lifestyle factors that raise the risk of cognitive impairment could help prevent more than one-third of dementia cases across the globe, according to a separate comprehensive analysis published in The Lancet on Thursday.
The NAS panel proposed that its findings be shared with the public and physicians, but stopped short of proposing a major public health campaign, citing the need for further research.
Here are insights from the report, based on interviews with panel members and outside experts:
Strategies Work In Some Cases, Not Others
As people age, mental processing becomes slower and memory becomes less reliable — a normal condition known as age-related cognitive decline.
Two of the interventions recommended in the NAS report — cognitive training and physical activity — appear to have the potential to delay age-related cognitive decline. But there’s no evidence that they can prevent dementia or mild cognitive impairment, an intermediate condition that sometimes progresses to dementia.
Managing high blood pressure is the only strategy thought to have the potential to prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. But it wasn’t shown to have an impact on age-related cognitive decline.
Once the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s are detected — notably amyloid beta plaques and tau tangles in the brain — some interventions might not be effective, said Dr. Ronald Petersen, a member of the NAS panel and director of the Mayo Clinic’s Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center.Use Our ContentThis KHN story can be republished for free (details).
It’s now known that biological changes associated with Alzheimer’s and related dementias begin a decade or more before any symptoms become evident. So it’s best to make recommended lifestyle changes early and sustain them over time.
“Prevention really needs to start in people who don’t show any sign of the disease — probably when people reach their 40s,” said Jeffrey Keller, director of the Institute for Dementia Research and Prevention at Louisiana State University, who was not involved in the NAS study.
Controlling high blood pressure, a strategy that helps preserve the health of blood vessels in the brain, is most effective if begun in middle age, the NAS report explained. But if you’ve reached age 65 and your blood pressure isn’t well managed, you’re still well advised to bring it under control, Landis said.
The same applies to physical activity: It’s best if you start in middle age, but becoming more active in later life is still good for your health. While it’s not yet known which type of activity is most effective, for what duration and how often it should be pursued for maximum brain benefit, walking briskly for 150 minutes a week or about 20 minutes a day is a good idea, Petersen said.
On Cognitive Training
Probably the best cognitive training you can get is a good education and ongoing mental stimulation. “There’s growing evidence that the ways in which your brain is challenged all through your life matter,” noted Langa, whose research has documented a decline in dementia rates in high-income countries over the past 25 years.
But the impact of education on brain health is very difficult to quantify. So the NAS panel endorsed cognitive training based largely on a randomized controlled trial known as Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly, which studied several thousand older adults over the course of 10 years.
ACTIVE had certified trainers work with seniors in small group sessions on various cognitive exercises for 10 sessions lasting an hour or more over five to six weeks. Feedback was an essential part of the intervention and booster sessions were offered. At 10 years, there was evidence of a positive effect on seniors’ independence and ability to perform daily tasks.
What was responsible for this effect? The training? Social interactions? Feedback? Booster sessions? All or some of the above? It’s not yet clear.
It’s important to note that the panel insisted that commercially sold computer-based brain games can’t be assumed to have the same effect. So far, research about brain games has failed to prove that this type of training improves broad-based cognitive functioning and people’s ability to function independently.
“The data supporting their efficacy just isn’t there,” said Petersen of the Mayo Clinic.
Try Several Things, Not Just One
When scientists examine the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease, they find amyloid beta plaques and tangles, but also changes in blood vessels, evidence of microbleeds, and lesions in the brain’s white matter. “It’s mixed dementia, due to multiple factors — not just one thing,” Landis said.
The corollary: Mix it up and try several ways to reduce age-related cognitive decline or dementia, not just one.
“If we think of Alzheimer’s as a multifactorial disease, it makes sense to reduce multiple risk factors simultaneously,” said Rong Zhang, associate professor of neurology and neurotherapeutics at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Zhang is also the principal investigator for a five-year study investigating whether aerobic exercise combined with intensive control of hypertension and cholesterol can help prevent Alzheimer’s. That study, the Risk Reduction for Alzheimer’s Disease trial, is currently enrolling participants at six medical centers.
“The brain is complicated and its response to interventions is complex,” Langa said. “Therefore, the more strategies that you use to try to improve the brain’s health long term, the more likely they’re going to work.”
The NAS report found no evidence supporting the use of ginkgo biloba and vitamin E, which are widely marketed to people concerned about brain health. And it questioned the value of other supplements, noting that overall dietary patterns appear more important than any single substance.
KHN’s coverage related to aging & improving care of older adults is supported by The John A. Hartford Foundation.
Contradicting the opinion of most policy experts, a draft report from the Trump administration forecasts better enrollment and lower premiums for everyone who buys their own health insurance if a controversial amendment proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas were to become law.
The draft surfaced just as Republican senators were lunching with President Donald Trump on Wednesday to talk about the next steps in the health care debate.
“The Republicans never discuss how good their healthcare bill is, & it will get even better at lunchtime,” tweeted Trump, before the group convened.
But findings from the draft report drew immediate criticism from health policy experts as opaque and misleading.
“The details get a bit dicey,” said Craig Garthwaite, director of the health care program at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. “No one I’ve talked to thinks [the analysis] is well done.”
The forecasts in a 22draft analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services are exactly opposite from what many experts forecast.Use Our ContentThis KHN story can be republished for free (details).
Still, the HHS analysis did provide some insight into how HHS envisioned that the Cruz plan, part of the Senate bill that appeared to die this week, could have worked. Particularly notable: The analysis assumes annual deductibles of $12,000, which means consumers would have to pay that amount — which is far higher than allowed under the ACA — before most benefits are covered.
On Wednesday, health care developments continued to unfold at a breakneck pace, and with a zigzagging trajectory, when the Senate Budget Committee posted on its website yet another bill. This one is an updated version of the 2015 “repeal and delay” bill, which is likely the measure the Senate will consider next week if a vote to start debate succeeds.
It would repeal all of the taxes that paid for the Affordable Care Act’s benefits, roll back the expansion of Medicaid (but not cap the underlying program), nullify the requirement for most people to have insurance and rescind the financial aid for low- and moderate-income Americans.
Late in the afternoon, the Congressional Budget Office released an updated estimate of an earlier analysis concluding that the new “repeal and delay” measure could result in 32 million fewer Americans having coverage and premiums doubling by 2026. By 2020, according to CBO, “about half the nation’s population would live in areas having no insurer participating in the non-group market.” The new bill does not include the Cruz amendment, the subject of the HHS report.
Opposition to the Cruz amendment from powerful health care sectors, like the insurance industry, is cited as one reason why the Senate was unable to muster enough votes to move the whole Senate bill forward for debate this week.
Last Friday, the insurance industry trade lobby sent a harsh warning to Congress, saying the Cruz amendment “is simply unworkable in any form and would undermine protections for those with pre-existing medical conditions, increase premiums and lead to widespread terminations of coverage.”
Today, the HHS report took a very different view.
First reported in the right-leaning Washington Examiner, it forecasts far more people covered by insurance in 2024 if the Cruz plan were adopted, as compared with how many would be insured under the Affordable Care Act.
It also projects premiums would fall, both in plans that meet all the rules of the ACA, and in plans Cruz proposes, which would not have to follow the rules. The Cruz plans would have lower premiums, however, because they could come with far fewer benefits — and could reject people with medical problems or charge them more.
Insurers and actuaries said the Cruz proposal would result in a segmented market, with younger and healthier people drawn to the skimpier, less expensive plans. That, in turn, would leave older or sicker enrollees in the ACA-compliant plans, causing their premiums to spiral upward.
But the analysis by HHS shows premium costs for ACA-compliant plans would go down by more than $250 a month in 2024 when compared with what they would be under current law. The Cruz plans would be super cheap, at under $200 a month under the rosiest scenario outlined.
Experts today immediately pounced on the department’s methods — in as much as they could be determined, since the full report was not released.
(HHS did not respond to requests for comment or for the release of the full report.)
For starters, the draft report, they say, compares premiums for a 40-year-old with the “weighted average” of all people of all ages purchasing ACA plans now.
“It’s not apples to apples,” said Matt Fiedler, a fellow at the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy.
It cited its own “proprietary model” used to determine how many people would switch from ACA plans to the new Cruz plans, without spelling out its assumptions. Not including such details is highly unusual and makes the results difficult to analyze, said Garthwaite, adding: “There’s nothing in this that gives me any hope that the entire report will be any more accurate, complete or unbiased.”
Meanwhile, over lunch at the White House, President Trump asked senators to skip all or part of their August recess in order to work on another proposal to repeal and replace the ACA. He promised premiums that would be significantly lower, without citing details on how that would occur.
The atmosphere at a House Appropriations Committee lunch meeting on women’s health midday Wednesday was predictably charged.
The Trump administration has proposed to defund Planned Parenthood and make severe cuts in other women’s health programs, such as Title X, a 40-year-old program that provides grants for family planning, and grants for teen pregnancy prevention.
Much of the male-dominated debate — over chili dogs and orange juice — was nominally about where women prefer to seek health care. But the central character was abortion.
Democratic representatives introduced several amendments related to women’s health, including one restoring teen pregnancy prevention grants and another striking language that would allow employers to exclude certain procedures from their health plans if they found them morally objectionable. All of the amendments failed in the Republican-controlled body.Use Our ContentThis KHN story can be republished for free (details).
“No taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortion, and I’ll fight any effort to dilute or get around that,” declared Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.), who prefaced her comments by calling herself “proudly pro-life.”
Federal funds are already prohibited for abortions under the Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976.
So the question of where women should be able to obtain health care has become an odd proxy for the abortion issue. According to Planned Parenthood, 60 percent of women who use their clinics consider it their main source for medical attention.
“We see community health centers as a more appropriate provider, and those are funded in the bill,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.).
Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.) agreed, saying women in his state — home to only one Planned Parenthood clinic — prefer to get their care at community health centers. “When we have an opportunity to defund Planned Parenthood and invest in community health centers, that’s good for West Virginia,” Jenkins said.
But money saved by defunding Planned Parenthood isn’t slated for community health centers, whose funding isn’t changing under the Trump administration’s proposed budget.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) pointed out: “We may disagree in terms of a woman’s right to choose abortions, but I hope we can agree that women should be able to make their own health care decisions.”
The Congressional Budget Office releases July 19 its estimates on an amendment to H.R. 1628 that would repeal the Affordable Care Act outright.
This is the CBO’s fourth review of repeal-and-replace related legislative drafts. Below are the past scores from the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act, released June 26, and the House-passed American Health Care Act, released May 24.
Federal health officials made more than $16 billion in improper payments to private Medicare Advantage health plans last year and need to crack down on billing errors by the insurers, a top congressional auditor testified Wednesday.
James Cosgrove, who directs health care reviews for the Government Accountability Office, told the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee that the Medicare Advantage improper payment rate was 10 percent in 2016, which comes to $16.2 billion.
Adding in the overpayments for standard Medicare programs, the tally for last year approached $60 billion — which is almost twice as much as the National Institutes of Health spends on medical research each year.
“Fundamental changes are necessary” to improve how the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ferrets out billing mistakes and recoups overpayments from health insurers, he said.
Medicare serves about 56 million people, both those 65 and older and disabled people of any age. About 19 million have chosen to enroll in Medicare Advantage plans as an alternative to standard Medicare.
Federal officials predict the Medicare Advantage option will grow further as massive numbers of baby boomers retire in coming years.
Standard Medicare has a similar problem making accurate payments to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, according to statistics presented at the hearing. Standard Medicare’s payment error rate was cited at 11 percent, or $41 billion for 2016.Use Our ContentThis KHN story can be republished for free (details).
Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the arrest of 412 people, some 100 doctors among them, in a scattershot of health care fraud schemes that allegedly ripped off the government for about $1.3 billion, mostly from Medicare.
CMS official Jonathan Morse said that the “largest contributors” to billing mistakes in standard Medicare were claims from home health care and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
Some lawmakers appeared frustrated that CMS cannot say for sure how much of the “improper payments” in both Medicare options are caused by fraud. The agency uses the term broadly to cover billing fraud, waste and abuse, as well as simply overcharges and underpayments.
“When trying to understand how much fraud is in Medicare, the answer is simply we don’t know,” subcommittee Chairman Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) said.
Yet he added that “it doesn’t take a big percentage [of fraud] to get a giant number” of dollars.
CMS official Morse did little to clear up any confusion over billing mistakes. In his written testimony, he said that improper payments are “most often payments for which there is no or insufficient supporting documentation to determine whether the service … was medically necessary.”
In his testimony, GAO official Cosgrove focused on the Medicare Advantage program. He took aim at a little-known government audit process called Risk Adjustment Data Validation, or RADV. These audits require health plans to submit a sample of patient records for review.
Cosgrove said that the RADV audits take too long to complete and failed to focus on health plans with the greatest potential for recovery of overcharges. He also said that CMS officials had not done enough to make sure the payment data they use are accurate. As a result, “the soundness of billions of dollars in Medicare expenditures remains unsubstantiated,” according to written testimony.
The GAO, the watchdog arm of Congress, has previously criticized CMS for its failure to ferret out overcharges in Medicare Advantage. In an April report, GAO found that CMS has spent about $117 million on the Medicare Advantage audits since 2010 but recouped just under $14 million in total.
Payment errors and overcharges by Medicare Advantage plans were the subject of a lengthy investigation by Kaiser Health News and the Center for Public Integrity. Federal officials have struggled for years to weed out billing irregularities by Medicare Advantage plans, according to CMS records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Center for Public Integrity.
The investigation found that Medicare Advantage payment errors result mostly from flaws in a billing formula called a risk score. Congress expected risk scores would pay higher amounts for sicker patients and less for people in good health when it began phasing in the billing scales in 2004.
But since then, a wide range of CMS audits and other reviews have found that Medicare wastes billions of tax dollars annually because some health plans inflate risk scores by exaggerating how sick their patients are. One CMS memo made public through the FOIA lawsuit referred to risk-based payments as essentially an “honor system,” with few audits to curtail fraud and abuse.
Even when RADV audits have detected widespread overpayments, CMS officials have failed to recoup money after years of haggling with the health plans.
In January, Kaiser Health News reported that Medicare had potentially overpaid five Medicare Advantage health plans by $128 million in 2007, but under pressure from the insurance industry collected just $3.4 million and settled the cases.
Morse testified on Wednesday that CMS is still in the process of completing appeals of RADV audits from 2007. He said that payment errors have been calculated for 2011 and that reviews for 2012 and 2013 were underway.
These results are years behind schedule, according to CMS documents, which show the results were expected in early 2014. In the past, officials have said that they expected to collect as much as $370 million from the 2011 audits.
Morse said on Wednesday he didn’t know when the 2011 audit results would be released. “Hopefully soon,” he said after the hearing. “I actually don’t know.”
KHN’s coverage related to aging & improving care of older adults is supported by The John A. Hartford Foundation.
SNAP (formerly food stamp) caseloads and spending continue to fall in 2017, the latest Agriculture and Treasury Department data show. (See graph.) These drops counter some policymakers’ assertions that they need to cut SNAP deeply to curb its growth.
In her budget plan, House Budget Committee Chair Diane Black directed some of her most draconian cuts at non-defense discretionary (NDD) programs, which promote opportunity, provide building blocks for economic growth, and fund basic public services, among many other things. These programs have been squeezed considerably since 2010 under the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), but the House budget would shrink them to historic lows. By 2027, the budget plan’s final year, NDD spending would:
Siete años de votos republicanos para “derogar y reemplazar” la Ley de Cuidado de Salud Asequible (ACA) se desmoronaron el martes 18 de junio, cuando quedó claro que el Senado no podría reunir los votos necesarios para ninguna de las tres propuestas separadas que se estaban considerando.
El fracaso, al menos por ahora, rompe una de las promesas clave que los republicanos vienen haciendo a sus votantes desde 2010, cuando ACA se convirtió en ley.
“Esta ha sido una experiencia muy desafiante para todos nosotros”, dijo el líder de la mayoría del Senado Mitch McConnell (republicano de Kentucky) a periodistas el martes a la tarde. “Está bastante claro que no hay 50 republicanos en este momento para votar por un reemplazo del Obamacare”.
La declaración de oposición que hicieron el lunes los senadores republicanos conservadores Mike Lee (Utah) y Jerry Moran (Kansas) desterró incluso la oportunidad de iniciar el debate sobre la versión de un proyecto de ley presentado la semana anterior.Use Nuestro ContenidoEste contenido puede usarse de manera gratuita (detalles).
McConnell agregó que el Senado votaría a principios de la próxima semana sobre un plan, originalmente aprobado en 2015 y vetado por el presidente Barack Obama, que derogaría partes de la ley de salud. Ese enfoque retrasaría la fecha efectiva de votación por dos años para dar a los legisladores el tiempo para proponer un reemplazo.
Sin embargo, la oposición de los republicanos moderados Susan Collins (Maine), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia) y Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), garantiza que esta votación también fracasará.
“Sólo para decir “derogamos la ley y confíe en nosotros, que vamos a arreglar esto en un par de años’, eso no va a proporcionar consuelo a la ansiedad que muchas familias de Alaska están sintiendo en este momento”, dijo Murkowski a periodistas.
En retrospectiva, la incapacidad de los republicanos para reemplazar la ley de salud no debería ser una sorpresa. Estas son algunas de las razones:
1. Es difícil quitarle las cosas a la gente
Una vez lanzados, los programas federales que proporcionan a las personas beneficios que consideran importantes y valiosos son muy difíciles de quitar. En el caso de la atención de salud, la vida de las personas puede estar en juego. En el debate actual, los pacientes que temían lo que sucedería con su cobertura de salud si se derogaba el Obamacare le hicieron saber sus preocupaciones a los legisladores, en voz bien alta.
2. Los republicanos están divididos desde hace tiempo en el tema de la atención médica
El recóndito secreto que los republicanos guardaron estos últimos siete años es que, fundamentalmente, en lo único que acordaron sobre la atención de salud fue en el eslogan “derogar y reemplazar”. Hay una razón por la cual no tuvieron un plan cuando Donald Trump fue elegido presidente. Hasta ahora, todos los esfuerzos por lograr un consenso fracasaron.
“No vine a Washington para herir a la gente”, dijo Capito en un comunicado. “Tengo serias preocupaciones acerca de cómo seguimos proporcionando atención asequible a aquellos que se han beneficiado de la decisión de West Virginia de ampliar el Medicaid”.
Pero los miembros más conservadores, en particular el senador Rand Paul (republicano de Kentucky), tienen otras prioridades. “Todos nosotros prometimos que derogaríamos al Obamacare”, dijo Paul a periodistas el martes. “Si no está dispuesto a votar de la manera en que votó en 2015, entonces necesita regresar a casa y necesita explicarles a los republicanos por qué ya no apoya la revocación del Obamacare”.
3. El liderazgo presidencial en asuntos difíciles es importante
El presidente Trump dejó claro en todas partes lo que quería de un proyecto de ley de salud. Fue su insistencia original sobre que el “revocar y reemplazar” sucediera simultáneamente lo que alejó al Congreso de su estrategia de 2015 de derogar primero y reemplazar más tarde. Durante una celebración en el Jardín de las Rosas de la Casa Blanca, Trump aplaudió cuando la Cámara aprobó su proyecto de ley, pero luego lo llamó “maldito” durante una reunión de estrategia con senadores.
Cuando se hizo claro el lunes por la noche que el esfuerzo del Senado se estaba hundiendo, Trump twitteó: “Los republicanos deberían simplemente rechazar el Obamacare que está fracasando ahora y trabajar en un nuevo plan de salud desde cero”. “Como siempre han dicho, dejar que Obamacare fracase y luego diseñar un gran plan de salud”, agregó.
El presidente “les dio una tarea imposible con sus promesas (más, mejor, más barato para todos). Pero ni las políticas ni el púlpito bully ayudan en el momento crucial”, dijo Len Nichols, profesor de política de salud en la Universidad George Mason. “Y ahora los culpará por fracasar”.
Thomas Miller, del conservador American Enterprise Institute, agregó: “Ahora tenemos un ensayo clínico aleatorio que demuestra que uno no puede dirigir y gobernar a través de Twitter”.
4. El cuidado de la salud es complicado. De verdad
La atención de salud no ha sido tradicionalmente un tema de votación importante para los republicanos, y por lo tanto ha sido una prioridad menor -en comparación con cuestiones como los impuestos y el comercio- a la hora de elegir a sus representantes.
Agrega complejidad el hecho de que el conocimiento de los republicanos no es tan profundo como el de los demócratas cuando se trata de experiencia en políticas de salud. Los demócratas han trabajado en estos temas durante años. Incluso antes de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud Asequible, muchos ya habían servido en el Congreso durante décadas y habían aprendido de los errores que se cometieron en esfuerzos como el fracasado proyecto de ley de salud del presidente Bill Clinton.
5. Algunas partes del Obamacare son realmente populares, incluso entre los republicanos
El requisito de que la mayoría de las personas tengan un seguro a riesgo de pagar una multa -conocido como mandato individual- ha sido muy poco popular entre los votantes de todos los signos políticos. Pero muchas otras disposiciones importantes de la ley de salud, como garantizar la cobertura para las personas con condiciones preexistentes, siguen siendo ampliamente populares.
De hecho, en los últimos meses, el Obamacare ha ido creciendo en popularidad. La mayoría de las encuestas muestran que es más de dos veces más popular que el esfuerzo republicano por cambiarlo.
“Los republicanos tienen que admitir que realmente nos gustan algunas de las cosas de ACA”, dijo Murkowski.
Eso abrió una gran brecha entre los republicanos que querían mantener los beneficios populares y los que querían derogar la ley por completo. Una brecha que, hasta ahora, los republicanos han sido incapaces de zanjar.
Rachel Bluth contribuyó a esta historia.