Can States Take Over Health Care?

A new report shows how states can lower health costs and deliver care better than the federal government.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Mike Leavitt speaks during a news conference in the heavily fortified Green Zone area in Baghdad on October 20, 2008. The official spoke about the US-Iraqi relations in the field of health and humanitarian aid. AFP PHOTO/POOL/ALI ABBAS 
National Journal
Sophie Novack
Jan. 9, 2014, 4:55 a.m.

Fed­er­al health care spend­ing has been get­ting all the at­ten­tion, but it’s the states that are best equipped to re­form the sys­tem and con­tain costs, says a new re­port or­gan­ized by the Uni­versity of Vir­gin­ia’s Miller Cen­ter.

The re­port — fun­ded by Kais­er Per­man­ente and the Robert Wood John­son Found­a­tion — out­lines meas­ures states can take to im­prove care and re­duce cost. Ac­cord­ing to the con­trib­ut­ors, states have unique tools to take the lead in ad­dress­ing the is­sues with the U.S. health care sys­tem in ways the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment can­not.

“The grid­lock in Wash­ing­ton will in­ev­it­ably chan­nel these prob­lems to a place that can find a solu­tion,” said Mike Leav­itt, the former U.S. Health and Hu­man Ser­vices sec­ret­ary and a former gov­ernor of Utah who co­chaired the State Health Care Cost Con­tain­ment Com­mis­sion, which put to­geth­er the re­port. “The eco­nom­ic im­per­at­ive to find these solu­tions is far big­ger than the Af­ford­able Care Act, or any­thing hap­pen­ing in Wash­ing­ton. The ques­tion is how chaot­ic is it, or how or­derly is it? States will be a place where or­der will be found, ul­ti­mately be­fore Wash­ing­ton.”

Former Col­or­ado Gov. Bill Ritter is the oth­er com­mis­sion co­chair.

The au­thors de­scribe five im­port­ant “policy levers” that states pos­sess to in­flu­ence the way care is priced and de­livered. States con­trol gov­ern­ment-sponsored health pro­grams like Medi­caid and CHIP, health in­sur­ance ex­changes, and state em­ploy­ee health be­ne­fits; have au­thor­ity over in­sur­ance, pro­vider rates, and med­ic­al mal­prac­tice; can set an­ti­trust laws and re­quire plans to provide trans­par­ent cost and qual­ity in­form­a­tion to con­sumers; can pro­mote pop­u­la­tion health through pub­lic health ini­ti­at­ives; and have the abil­ity, through gov­ernors, to en­gage vari­ous stake­hold­ers in find­ing solu­tions.

This fi­nal lever is em­phas­ized as one of the most im­port­ant. “In the past, this hasn’t been a place gov­ernors have played a lead­er­ship role,” said Robert Re­is­chauer, Medi­care trust­ee and former dir­ect­or of the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice, and a mem­ber of the com­mis­sion. “[But] this is an op­por­tun­ity that only gov­ernors have as lead­ers and con­veners.”

The unique abil­ity of gov­ernors to gath­er stake­hold­ers to find col­lab­or­at­ive solu­tions is the first in the com­mit­tee’s sev­en re­com­mend­a­tions to states, and gen­er­ally ac­know­ledged as the crit­ic­al first step to achiev­ing the oth­ers.

The six oth­er re­com­mend­a­tions for the states are col­lect data to cre­ate a health care pro­file; set stand­ards and goals for spend­ing and qual­ity; use ex­ist­ing pro­grams such as Medi­caid and the ex­changes as lever­age to ac­cel­er­ate co­ordin­ated, risk-based care; in­crease trans­par­ency of plans to im­prove con­sumer in­form­a­tion and mar­ket com­pet­i­tion; re­form reg­u­la­tions like med­ic­al mal­prac­tice and scope of prac­tice to in­crease ef­fi­ciency; pro­mote pop­u­la­tion health and per­son­al re­spons­ib­il­ity through edu­ca­tion and well­ness pro­grams.

The re­port’s con­trib­ut­ors em­phas­ize these changes are a long-term pro­cess, with a five- to 10-year ho­ri­zon. Each state will need to de­cide how to im­ple­ment changes and de­term­ine its own bal­ance between gov­ern­ment over­sight and reg­u­la­tion and mar­ket in­nov­a­tion.

Al­though the ACA is seen as a na­tion­al health care over­haul, the way the law has rolled out has placed great deal of re­spons­ib­il­ity on states, blur­ring the line between the fed­er­al and state role in man­aging care.

“As the ACA has evolved, we’ve watched as states made the in­di­vidu­al de­cision to per­haps take a dif­fer­ent path, wheth­er they’ve ad­op­ted to ex­pand Medi­caid or not, or run their own ex­changes or not,” said com­mit­tee mem­ber An­drew Drey­fus, pres­id­ent and chief ex­ec­ut­ive of­ficer of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mas­sachu­setts. “Some of the na­tion­al stand­ard­iz­a­tion an­ti­cip­ated in the ACA has not come to pass at the same level, which I think has put a much great­er fo­cus on states as the locus of ac­count­ab­il­ity for health care.”

Leav­itt says the re­port was writ­ten not only for state of­fi­cials but for the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion as well. For states to take more of the reins in health care, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment needs to loosen them.

“We have seen real­ity set in on the ad­min­is­tra­tion and those im­ple­ment­ing the ACA, and that is how lim­ited their ca­pa­city is to im­ple­ment a na­tion­al strategy,” he said. “The ad­min­is­tra­tion over time has be­gun to grant great­er flex­ib­il­ity to states in or­der to in­centiv­ize as many as pos­sible to be­come in­volved.”

Leav­itt points to the es­sen­tial health be­ne­fits and the Arkan­sas Medi­caid waiver as ex­amples of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment grant­ing flex­ib­il­ity to states in how to im­ple­ment ACA pro­vi­sions.

“If you’re go­ing to have na­tion­al stand­ards, then neigh­bor­hood solu­tions is the way you im­ple­ment those. The more you can provide flex­ib­il­ity, the more ef­fect­ive the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment will be.”

What We're Following See More »
BACKING OUT ON BERNIE
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
1 days ago
THE LATEST

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

AKNOWLEDGING THE INEVITABLE
UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Source:
AP KEEPING COUNT
Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Source:
TRUMP FLOATED IDEA ON JIMMY KIMMEL’S SHOW
Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
3 days ago
THE LATEST
CAMPAIGNS INJECTED NEW AD MONEY
California: It’s Not Over Yet
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.

Source:
×