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 »
A DARK CLOUD OVER TRUMP?
Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
2 days ago
THE LATEST

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

Source:
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Source:
THE LAST ROUND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLS
Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
1 days ago
THE LATEST

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
IT’S ALL ABOUT SECOND PLACE
CNN Calls the Primary for Sanders and Trump
21 hours ago
THE LATEST

Well that didn’t take long. CNN has already declared Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the winners of the New Hampshire primary, leaving the rest of the candidates to fight for the scraps. Five minutes later, the Associated Press echoed CNN’s call.

Source:
×