Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Plans Might Be Headed Nowhere

To make major health care policy changes, a Democratic president probably needs Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress, which isn’t likely in 2017.

Scott Eisen AFP/Getty
Caitlin Owens
Add to Briefcase
Caitlin Owens
Oct. 4, 2015, 8 p.m.

The last time Hil­lary Clin­ton was in the White House, she pitched Amer­ic­ans on a plan to change the Amer­ic­an health care sys­tem—only to see Con­gress suc­cess­fully stand in her way. If Clin­ton gets her way in 2016 and earns a re­turn trip to the White House (this time as pres­id­ent rather than first lady), she may have the same ex­per­i­ence all over again.

Clin­ton re­cently rolled out a health care policy agenda, say­ing she would work to bring out-of-pock­et costs down for con­sumers at the ex­pense of phar­ma­ceut­ic­al com­pan­ies and in­surers. Many of those pro­pos­als, however, could be en­acted only with Con­gress’ con­sent, and that’s where even a Pres­id­ent Hil­lary Clin­ton would have a prob­lem. Demo­crats are com­pet­ing for con­trol of the Sen­ate, but bar­ring an elec­tion res­ult that even ar­dent Demo­crats con­cede is far-fetched, Re­pub­lic­ans will keep con­trol of the House next Novem­ber.

All of which leads to the ques­tion: If Clin­ton wins, could she move any of her health care agenda for­ward?

In short, it’s com­plic­ated. Some of Clin­ton’s policy pro­pos­als, par­tic­u­larly those ex­pand­ing and en­for­cing the Af­ford­able Care Act, could be ac­com­plished through ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion. But many of her more am­bi­tious plans, in­clud­ing those aimed at bring­ing down drug costs, would re­quire le­gis­la­tion, which would be un­likely to pass through Con­gress without Demo­crat­ic con­trol in both cham­bers.

“I think the pres­id­ent has con­sid­er­able lever­age with one house,” said Robert Blendon, an as­so­ci­ate dean at Har­vard’s schools of pub­lic health. “You can’t have a dra­mat­ic ma­jor change, but you can tilt it one way or the oth­er if you had a pres­id­ent and the Sen­ate or the pres­id­ent and the House.”

Sev­er­al ex­perts—though nu­anced in their re­sponses—gen­er­ally agreed upon the fol­low­ing paths for­ward for her policy pro­pos­als.

What Clin­ton could do through ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion:

To put it simply, the policies Clin­ton could most likely en­act through ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion are the ones that bore voters and ex­cite health care wonks.

They’re also the ones that build off of the Af­ford­able Care Act, par­tic­u­larly the pieces of it de­signed to lower over­all health care costs and pro­tect con­sumers.

Clin­ton pro­posed strength­en­ing the law in sev­er­al areas, in­clud­ing pay­ment re­form that moves away from the cur­rent fee-for-ser­vice mod­el and in­stead re­wards value-driv­en care. Spe­cific­ally, the plan calls for im­ple­ment­ing new and ex­pand­ing ex­ist­ing sys­tems that pay pro­viders for bundles of care. In oth­er words, rather than be­ing paid for every test or pro­ced­ure, pro­viders would be giv­en a lump sum of money to pay for an en­tire epis­ode of care. Do­ing so would ideally give doc­tors and hos­pit­als in­cent­ive to co­ordin­ate care in an Ac­count­able Care Or­gan­iz­a­tion.

“Clin­ton is com­mit­ted to build­ing on the Af­ford­able Care Act and the Obama Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­forms that ex­pand value-based de­liv­ery sys­tem re­form in Medi­care and Medi­caid,” the pro­pos­al stated, adding that she will pro­pose “pub­lic-private ef­forts that in­centiv­ize em­ploy­ers and in­surers to work to ex­pand these proven pay­ment mod­els to oth­er sources of cov­er­age.”

Her plan also builds on the ACA’s trans­par­ency pro­vi­sions, ex­pands dis­clos­ure re­quire­ments, and makes new cost-shar­ing pro­tec­tions, with the goal of giv­ing con­sumers more in­form­a­tion while se­lect­ing plans and doc­tors and pro­tect­ing people from un­ex­pec­ted med­ic­al bills.

Out­side of Obama­care, Clin­ton ad­dressed grow­ing con­cern about in­dustry con­sol­id­a­tion fol­low­ing news about in­surer and pro­vider mer­gers, say­ing that “care­ful stud­ies have shown that mer­gers lead­ing to high­er mar­ket con­cen­tra­tion can raise premi­ums for con­sumers.” Her plan would cre­ate a fall­back pro­cess for states that do not have the au­thor­ity to modi­fy or block premi­um in­creases pro­posed by in­surers. It would also more strongly en­force an­ti­trust laws, mak­ing sure reg­u­lat­ors have the re­sources to mon­it­or health in­dustry con­sol­id­a­tion and in­vest­ig­ate mer­gers that could po­ten­tially raise premi­ums.

In one of her vaguer pro­pos­als, she also prom­ises to lever­age re­sources to en­cour­age en­tre­pren­eur­ship in health care, an­oth­er task she might be able to ac­com­plish through ad­min­is­trat­ive ac­tion.

What Clin­ton would need Con­gress to ac­com­plish:

Most of Clin­ton’s more ex­cit­ing policy pro­pos­als—in­clud­ing those aimed at lower­ing pre­scrip­tion drug costs—fall in­to this cat­egory.

“With­in her drug plan, it doesn’t ap­pear there’s a single piece that could be done without con­gres­sion­al ac­tion,” said Loren Adler, re­search dir­ect­or at the Com­mit­tee for a Re­spons­ible Fed­er­al Budget.

On Tues­day, Clin­ton re­leased a pre­scrip­tion-drug policy agenda that has already drawn the ire of phar­ma­ceut­ic­al com­pan­ies. In it, she pro­poses di­vert­ing drug-com­pany funds from mar­ket­ing to re­search, in­creas­ing com­pet­i­tion for pre­scrip­tion drugs by en­cour­aging the de­vel­op­ment of gen­er­ics, al­low­ing drugs to be im­por­ted from abroad, de­mand­ing high­er re­bates for pre­scrip­tion drugs in Medi­care, and al­low­ing Medi­care to ne­go­ti­ate drug prices. She would also cap monthly and an­nu­al out-of-pock­et costs for pre­scrip­tion drugs, a policy that does not lower the ac­tu­al cost of the drugs but lowers how much con­sumers pay for them, mean­ing in­surers pick up the dif­fer­ence.

These pro­pos­als build off of gen­er­al pub­lic opin­ion that pre­scrip­tion drugs are too ex­pens­ive and something should be done to lower the cost. To date, however, Wash­ing­ton has done next-to-noth­ing to at­tempt to con­trol price in­creases.

Part of that is due to Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion, which could be a prob­lem if Clin­ton be­comes pres­id­ent and wants to ac­tu­ally lower prices through policy.

“Re­pub­lic­ans are not go­ing to like price con­trols on phar­ma­ceut­ic­als; that’s al­ways made them very, very nervous,” Blendon said. “But there are some changes in how the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment would pur­chase drugs, in­form­a­tion, lessen times on pat­ents—there’s things that they might find that they could agree on with one house that would move something on that agenda for­ward.”

There is the chance that Re­pub­lic­ans could even­tu­ally suc­cumb to voter pres­sure to act on some of the more pro­gress­ive policies as well.  

Clin­ton also pro­posed build­ing on the ACA by re­quir­ing in­surers and em­ploy­ers to provide up to three sick vis­its to a doc­tor an­nu­ally without need­ing to meet a de­duct­ible first. She would ad­di­tion­ally provide a pro­gress­ive, re­fund­able tax cred­it of up to $5,000 per fam­ily to help cov­er ex­pens­ive out-of-pock­et costs. Both of these pro­vi­sions, ex­perts say, would need to be im­ple­men­ted through stat­utes.

The sil­ver lin­ing for Clin­ton is that her primary com­pet­i­tion is in the same boat. She and Sen. Bernie Sanders have very sim­il­ar drug-policy le­gis­la­tion, mean­ing he too would have to work with Con­gress to tackle drug prices.

“While man­dat­ing min­im­um drug re­bates in Medi­care or al­low­ing drug im­port­a­tion may be un­likely, it’s very pos­sible that high and rising drug prices cause enough of an up­roar to cause some ac­tion on that front,” Adler said. “To that end, it’s nice to see her—and Sanders—work­ing to add new ideas to help con­trol drug spend­ing bey­ond just the stal­warts that have been around for a long time.”

At the end of the day, however, it might not mat­ter what Clin­ton can and can’t do; voters gen­er­ally don’t want to hear can­did­ates wade in­to messy le­gis­lat­ive scen­ari­os on a de­bate stage.

“I think the de­bates will be around what your vis­ion is for the fu­ture rather than what it is that can get through Con­gress,” Blendon said.

What We're Following See More »
Senate Turns to Approps This Week
8 hours ago

"As the August session continues, senators will turn their attention in earnest to a measure that combines two spending bills covering appropriations for four Cabinet departments, led by the Department of Defense. ... The combined Senate bill includes the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations package, as well. That bill is traditionally among the most difficult to get across the Senate floor because of predictable partisan debates about social policy issues."

Brennan May Sue Trump Over Clearance
8 hours ago

"Former CIA director John O. Brennan said Sunday that he is willing to take President Trump to court to prevent other current and former officials from having their security clearances revoked, escalating a battle over whether the president is misusing the power of his office to retaliate against opponents."

175 Former NatSec Officials Now Sign Letter Rebuking Trump
8 hours ago

The national-security protest letter-writing campaign continues, with 175 former top U.S. officials rebuking President Donald Trump for stripping former CIA chief John Brennan of his security clearance last week.

Former. Rep. Leonard Boswell Dies at 84
8 hours ago

Former Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) died Friday at age 84; he “was hospitalized for complications from a form of cancer known as pseudomyxoma peritonei.” Boswell served in the House from 1997-2013, losing to now-former Rep. Tom Latham (R).

Manafort Case Moves to Closing Arguments
5 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.