Stanford Health Policy faculty members Michelle Mello, David Studdert and Laurence Baker discuss repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and how it could affect health coverage in the United States.

Now that the United States has elected a Republican president and Congress, what is likely to happen to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)?

Michelle Mello and David Studdert: Exactly what will happen is unclear at this point, particularly since President-elect Trump’s own position on the ACA seems to be evolving by the day. In an interview on Nov. 11, he said he is interested in keeping some of the key provisions of the law, such as a ban on insurers discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions and provisions allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26. But his opposition to other provisions, including the cornerstone provision requiring individuals to purchase insurance coverage, likely will remain. At this point, about the only thing one can say with certainty is that substantial change is coming.

Is the ACA likely to be repealed fully, or will some components be spared?

Mello/Studdert: On the campaign trail, President-elect Trump said repeatedly that repealing Obamacare is a priority. House Republicans have said the same. A complete repeal seems unlikely in the short term, though. There’s more opposition to some provisions of the act than to others, and millions of Americans now depend on health insurance coverage made available through the ACA. More likely, Republicans will target certain key elements – the individual mandate, minimum essential coverage rules, the subsidies available to low-income purchasers of health insurance and federal financing arrangements for the Medicaid program. Eliminating all of these features would spell the end of Obamacare as we know it. Eliminating any one of them would seriously threaten its viability, because the ACA’s strategy depends on having all major legs of the stool in place.

What is the legal process for repeal, and what issues would likely arise?

Mello/Studdert: Although Republicans will have a majority in the House and Senate, they fall just short of a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes) in the Senate. This is why a repeal is not likely to occur – at least not straight away – unless several Senate Democrats break ranks in the vote. A more likely scenario is that Republicans will use the budget reconciliation process to make the kind of changes mentioned above. Bills of this kind require only a simple 51-vote majority in the Senate, which they have.

Laurence Baker: Republicans have substantial ability to remove parts of the law under budget reconciliation. They can make changes to aspects of the ACA that involve financial in- and outflows to the federal government, but not other things. Reconciliation thus allows them to make changes to the major things like the mandate – because it involves a tax penalty – the subsidies and Medicaid. But they would not be easily able to repeal things like the exchange structures, guaranteed offers of insurance regardless of health status and other provisions. Guaranteed issue would be a real problem for insurance companies without the mandate, so repealing one but not the other threatens significant disruptions in insurance markets.

Most of the discussions thus far have focused on efforts to repeal the ACA’s expanding coverage aspects, but there are other aspects of the ACA that could be addressed. The ACA set up and funds the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), two organizations that have not been discussed much in the repeal debates and which are seen by some Republicans in a more positive light. The ACA also makes changes to Medicare payments. It seems likely that repeal debates will focus more on coverage and less on these things, but it’s hard to tell at this point.

How will this affect Americans who current receive subsidies for health insurance?

Mello/Studdert: Elimination of the subsidies would have a major effect on the ACA’s core objective to cover the uninsured. By 2017, about 25 million people will have purchased their health insurance on the exchanges set up under the ACA, and about three-quarters of them will receive subsidies to help make premiums affordable. If the subsidies disappear, we should expect that health insurance will become unaffordable for many of these people or no longer look like a good deal. The tax credits and health savings accounts currently being discussed won’t make up for what is lost, and many people who currently have insurance can be expected to drop it. Elimination of the individual mandate will further open the way for this to happen.

Baker: The reality of the health care system is that there are not easily available alternatives to the ACA that would protect coverage and be palatable to broad groups of Republicans. Single-payer, or national health insurance, is a non-starter, so they’d be left with market-oriented reforms, and there are not obvious ways to pursue those without at least some core features of the ACA. Most of the proposals recently put forward for a replacement, including those highlighted by the Trump campaign, like cross-state competition, tax credits for insurance purchase and block granting Medicaid, would not really offer coverage to a large number of the people who would lose it under repeal. So a key question is what alternatives the Republicans come up with. In a similar way, the ACA and its provisions have become increasingly woven into our insurance system. Insurers and employers, among others, have made decisions and investments incorporating the ACA. Undoing those threatens disruptions and political challenges.

Michelle Mello is a professor of law and of health research and policy.

David Studdert is a professor of law and of medicine.

Laurence Baker is a professor of health research and policy, chair of the Department of Health Research and Policy in the School of Medicine and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

China’s recent initiatives to deepen health reform, control antimicrobial resistance, and strengthen primary health services are the topics of ongoing collaborative research by the Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP) at Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and Chinese counterparts. For example, with generous support from ACON Biotechnology and in partnership with the ACON Biotech Primary Care Research Center in Hangzhou, China, AHPP hosts an annual conference on community health services and primary health care reform in China.

The conference, titled Forum on Community Health Services and Primary Health Care Reform, was held in June at the Stanford Center at Peking University (SCPKU) in Beijing. It featured distinguished policymakers, providers and researchers who discussed a wide-range of topics from China’s emerging “hierarchical medical system” for referring patients to the appropriate level of care (fenji zhenliao), as well as the practice and challenges of innovative approaches to primary care and integrated medical care systems. Yongquan Chen, director of Yong’an City Hospital and representative for the mayor’s office of Sanming, talked about health reforms in Sanming City, Fujian Province, a famous example within China. He discussed the incentives and reasoning behind the reforms, which focus on removing incentives for over-prescription of medications, demonstrating government leadership for comprehensive reforms, consolidating three agencies into one, monitoring implementation and easing tensions between doctors and patients. He pointed out the feasibility and early successes of reform by comparing public hospitals in the city in terms of their revenues and costs, reduced reliance on net revenue from medication sales, and other dimensions of performance. Finally, he addressed reform implementation and future plans on both the hospital's and the government's part.

Xiaofang Han, former director of the Beijing Municipal Development and Reform Commission, shared her personal views on the challenges patients face in navigating China’s health system (kan bing nan) and the need to improve the structure of the delivery system, including a revision to the incentives driving over-prescription in China’s fee-for-service payment system. She emphasized that patients’ distrust of primary care providers can only be overcome by demonstrating improved quality (e.g. with a systematic training program for general practitioners, GPs), and that referral systems should be based on the actual capabilities of the clinicians, not their formal labels. To reach China’s goal of over 80 percent of patients receiving management and first-contact care within their local communities will require improved training and incentive programs for newly-minted MDs, a more flexible physician labor market, and innovations in e-health and patient choice regarding gatekeeping or “contract physician services” (qianyue fuwu).        

Guangde County People's Hospital Director Mingliang Xu spoke about practices and exploration of healthcare alliances and initiatives to provide transparent incentives linking medical staff bonuses to metrics of quality. Ping Zhu from Community Healthcare Service Development and Research Center in Ningbo addressed building solid relationships between doctors and residents and providing more patient-centered services.        

Professor Yingyao Chen from Fudan University School of Public Health discussed performance assessment of community health service agencies based on his research in Shanghai. He introduced the strengths and weaknesses of the incentives embedded in the assessment system for China’s primary care providers, and concluded with suggestions for future research. Dr. Linlin Hu, associate professor at Peking Union Medical College, discussed China's progress and challenges of providing universal coverage of national essential public health services.

Professor Hufeng Wang of Renmin University of China discussed China’s vision for a “hierarchical medical system”– bearing resemblance to “integrated care,” “managed care,” or NHS-like coordination of primary and specialized care – with examples of pilot reforms from Xiamen, Zhenjiang and Dalian cities. Dr. Zuxun Lu, professor of Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, also discussed hierarchical medical systems and declared that China currently had a “discounted gatekeeper system.”

Dr. Yaping Du of Zhejiang University presented his research on mobile technology for management of lipid levels and with the help of a volunteer, demonstrated “Dyslipidemia Manager,” a mobile app-based product for both patients and doctors. Innovative strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in low- and middle-income countries were the focus of remarks by Dr. Guanyang Zou from the Institute for Global Health and Development at Queen Margaret University, including its connections to international experiences with China’s current efforts in that area.  

In sum, the 2016 Forum elicited lively, evidence-based discussions about the opportunities and challenges in improving primary care and sustaining universal coverage for China.  Plans are underway for convening the third annual ACON Biotech-Stanford AHPP Forum on Community Health Services and Primary Health Care Reform in June 2017 at SCPKU. Anyone with original research or innovative experiences with primary care in China may contact Karen Eggleston regarding participation in next year’s Forum. 

A long line of research has shown that women live longer than men, yet according to Karen Eggleston, director of the Asia Health Policy Program, and four other Stanford health researchers, mortality rate differences between men and women are much more variable than previously thought, following predictable patterns. Life expectancy differs depending on time, location and socioeconomic circumstance, not on biological factors alone, according to their newly published findings.

The researchers found that women have greater resilience when faced with socioeconomic adversity in a developing country—living nearly 10 years longer than men on average—but this pattern changes as the country evolves. Developed countries typically have smaller gaps in mortality rates between men and women than developing countries do.

Japan and South Korea are outliers, however, with higher mortality rate differences between men and women than is average for developed countries. In addition to the prevalence of male smoking, one possible explanation they draw is the lack of career-related opportunities for women in Japan and South Korea, two countries that have low gender wage equity among Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development members.

Eggleston, who is part of the core faculty at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, et al. suggested the idea that reducing gender inequality may help narrow the mortality gap: men increase years lived when fewer barriers for women exist, but concluded that their findings supporting this conclusion merit further inquiry.

Their findings were published in the August edition of SSM – Population Health and highlighted in an earlier column on Voxeu.

When is the last time you took a good, hard look at your health insurance options? Do you know what changes were made to your plan last year?

If the answer is “no,” you are not alone.

According to a new study by Maria Polyakova, assistant professor of health research and policy and Stanford Health Policy core faculty member, most Medicare Part D enrollees do not change their plans from year to year — even though plans can change drastically.

The study, recently published in the American Economic Journal: Applied, asserts that nudging consumers to re-evaluate their coverage could save them around $500 per year in out of pocket spending and premiums.

What is Medicare Part D?

Implemented in 2006, Part D allows Medicare users to purchase prescription drug coverage. Plans are administered by private insurance companies, but are heavily subsidized and regulated by the federal government. Consumers choose from more than 30 plans in their home state and are able to switch during a yearly open-enrollment period.

About 40 million people in the United States are enrolled in a Part D plan.

But Polyakova finds that “people do not seem to be switching contracts very often. At the same time, the contracts are changing quite dramatically every year.”

Though the study does not examine why consumers failed to switch, the data suggests that changing plans can be costly. Not necessarily a financial cost, but likely one of time or energy.

Thoroughly examining more than 30 plans on a yearly basis can be a burden, and changes are not always easy to detect.

“There are many other features of Part D plans that may change, so even if premiums appear the same, insurers may have changed other parts of coverage, such as deductible levels, co-pays and co-insurance, as well as which drugs are included,” said Polyakova.

Because the Part D market as a whole is dynamic, consumers can lose money even when their plan is stable.

“Even if your specific plan doesn’t change much, it is possible that it is not the best plan anymore because other plans change.”

Consumers tend to stick with the plan they picked when they first signed up. As a result, the study observes that individuals with similar needs may find themselves enrolled in very different plans if they made their first enrollment choices in different years.

This suggests that while most people likely try to pick the best coverage initially, they do not tend to re-evaluate their coverage each year in a way that fits their needs.

How can we improve coverage choices?

Polyakova believes that if the U.S. government were to more actively remind people to re-examine their plans during open enrollment, they could save consumers 20 to 30 percent.

Some researchers worry that improving individual choices and encouraging consumers to update their coverage could negatively affect the insurance market through “adverse selection.”

For example, individuals who are fairly healthy might tend to choose less generous plans than those who are relatively sick. If all those in poorer health end up in one plan, and there are no relatively low-spending enrollees to counteract the risk, the generous plan can become unsustainable.

However, the study finds evidence suggesting that for Part D, reminders to re-examine plans are unlikely to cause issues from adverse selection.

The federal government has implemented risk adjustment policies, or ways to combat the negative effects of adverse selection, that work to keep the market from unraveling. The government provides higher subsidies for sicker patients, pays the majority of patient costs and caps insurers’ profits and losses.

“From the point of view of the government, it seems that it is worthwhile to remind people who are already enrolled to reconsider their choices and potentially explain the differences across plans,” said Polyakova.

As the Affordable Care Act (ACA) changes coverage for Part D plans, reminding enrollees to re-examine their choices will become even more important. The ACA will substantially increase coverage, and plans could change considerably as a result.

What does this mean for the health insurance market?

While the study focuses specifically on Medicare Part D, Polyakova believes these findings likely translate to other areas of health insurance, particularly coverage under the ACA, which has many similar policies.

“The idea that we should remind consumers to re-evaluate plans has already been quite influential in the ACA policy debate,” said Polyakova. “Policymakers are tracking whether consumers are switching plans from one year to the next.”

She argues that in a consumer-driven economy, people must be able to easily make choices between products, in this case health insurance plans, for the market to function. But because choosing takes so much time and plan features are not always transparent, the forces driving the market may become weak.

Educating people about the financial benefits of switching plans could help the insurance market get back on track.

“People should try to reconsider their health risk and their insurance choices during every enrollment period,” Polyakova said. “Because if they don’t, it could have serious financial implications.”

The Asia Health Policy Program at Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, in collaboration with scholars from Stanford Health Policy's Center on Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the Next World Program, is soliciting papers for the third annual workshop on the economics of ageing titled Financing Longevity: The Economics of Pensions, Health Insurance, Long-term Care and Disability Insurance held at Stanford from April 24-25, 2017, and for a related special issue of the Journal of the Economics of Ageing.

The triumph of longevity can pose a challenge to the fiscal integrity of public and private pension systems and other social support programs disproportionately used by older adults. High-income countries offer lessons – frequently cautionary tales – for low- and middle-income countries about how to design social protection programs to be sustainable in the face of population ageing. Technological change and income inequality interact with population ageing to threaten the sustainability and perceived fairness of conventional financing for many social programs. Promoting longer working lives and savings for retirement are obvious policy priorities; but in many cases the fiscal challenges are even more acute for other social programs, such as insurance systems for medical care, long-term care, and disability. Reform of entitlement programs is also often politically difficult, further highlighting how important it is for developing countries putting in place comprehensive social security systems to take account of the macroeconomic implications of population ageing.

The objective of the workshop is to explore the economics of ageing from the perspective of sustainable financing for longer lives. The workshop will bring together researchers to present recent empirical and theoretical research on the economics of ageing with special (yet not exclusive) foci on the following topics:

• Public and private roles in savings and retirement security
• Living and working in an Age of Longevity: Lessons for Finance
• Defined benefit, defined contribution, and innovations in design of pension programs
• Intergenerational and equity implications of different financing mechanisms for pensions and social insurance
• The impact of population aging on health insurance financing
• Economic incentives of long-term care insurance and disability insurance systems
• Precautionary savings and social protection system generosity
• Elderly cognitive function and financial planning
• Evaluation of policies aimed at increasing health and productivity of older adults
• Population ageing and financing economic growth
• Tax policies’ implications for capital deepening and investment in human capital
• The relationship between population age structure and capital market returns
• Evidence on policies designed to address disparities – gender, ethnic/racial, inter-regional, urban/rural – in old-age support
• The political economy of reforming pension systems as well as health, long-term care and disability insurance programs

Submission for the workshop

Interested authors are invited to submit a 1-page abstract by Sept. 30, 2016, to Karen Eggleston at karene@stanford.edu. The authors of accepted abstracts will be notified by Oct. 15, 2016, and completed draft papers will be expected by April 1, 2017.

Economy-class travel and accommodation costs for one author of each accepted paper will be covered by the organizers.

Invited authors are expected to submit their paper to the Journal of the Economics of Ageing. A selection of these papers will (assuming successful completion of the review process) be published in a special issue.

Submission to the special issue

Authors (also those interested who are not attending the workshop) are invited to submit papers for the special issue in the Journal of the Economics of Ageing by Aug. 1, 2017. Submissions should be made online. Please select article type “SI Financing Longevity.”

About the Next World Program

The Next World Program is a joint initiative of Harvard University’s Program on the Global Demography of Aging, the WDA Forum, Stanford’s Asia Health Policy Program, and Fudan University’s Working Group on Comparative Ageing Societies. These institutions organize an annual workshop and a special issue in the Journal of the Economics of Ageing on an important economic theme related to ageing societies.

More information can be found in the PDF below.

Triage nurses typically assign patients to emergency room doctors who are on call or working a shift. But what if the doctors themselves determine whom among them is better suited to take on the next patient?

Classic economic theory predicts “moral hazard” in teams, which means one member behaves inefficiently because in the end someone else will pay the consequences. Yet many successful organizations promote teamwork.

So how does this puzzle relate to health care?

This is the question that Assistant Professor of Medicine David Chan, a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy, tackles in his new study in the Journal of Political Economy.

Emergency departments (ED) nationwide cost a combined $136 billion to run each year, significantly impacting the growing health-care sector of the U.S. economy. Visits to the emergency rooms are increasing despite the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, causing them to be overcrowded and underfunded.

Chan studied two organizational models: one in which physicians are assigned patients in a nurse-managed system and one in which the doctors divide patients among themselves in a self-managed system.

“I find evidence that physicians in the same location have better information about each other and that, in the self-managed system, they use this information to assign patients,” Chan writes.

He said that by simply allowing physicians to choose patients, a self-managed system reduces emergency room lengths of stay by 11-15 percent, relative to the nurse-managed system.

“This effect occurs primarily by reducing a `foot-dragging’ moral hazard, in which physicians delay patient discharge to forestall new work,” Chan writes. A triage nurse is often in another room and has a difficult time observing true physician workload, whereas peer physicians who work together can.

“So, for example, if there are two physicians working at a time when there are a whole bunch of patients in the waiting room, then each physician knows that the minute he discharges a patient, he is more likely to get another one,” Chan said in an interview. This might lead the physician to dilly-dally on the release of that patient, knowing that he’ll immediately be signed another before he gets a break.

However, two physicians who can observe how busy the other one truly is will be less likely to stall, even if they want to avoid new patients.

Chan studied a large, academic emergency room that treated 380,699 patients over a six-year period. He looked at length of stay, measuring each physician’s individual contribution. He also observed patient demographics and used the Emergency Severity Index, an ED triage algorithm based on a patient’s pain level, mental status, vital signs and medical condition.

Besides measuring the effect of the self-managed system in this large hospital, Chan combined evidence to support the hypothesis that teamwork improves outcomes because of mutual management with better information.

He found that the only difference in outcomes between the two organizational systems was foot-dragging. Clinical outcomes or even the number of tests ordered were about the same under a self-managed or nurse-managed system.

Moreover, the foot-dragging behavior grows as physicians may anticipate future work by the number of patients in the waiting room, even if they end up seeing the same number of patients.

Finally, physicians refrain from this behavior when being watched by another physician in the same location, even in the nurse-managed system, when that other physician does not otherwise have any role in the physician’s patient care.

“I think the biggest takeaway is that such efficiency gains can be widespread in health care, particularly because there is so much at stake hidden behind information in patient care that is not transparent,” Chan said.

“Even if we don’t fully anticipate all of these gains, we could still achieve a lot by tinkering and using these changes as natural experiments to figure out what works and what doesn’t,” Chan said. “We can further use these results, particularly the evidence pointing at a mechanism, to think of what other innovations might work.”

More than fifty experts met in Xi’an, China, for an international academic conference on demographic change and social development last week. Several scholars from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) spoke at the conference, including Karen Eggleston, Marcus Feldman, Jean Oi and Scott Rozelle.

The conference marked the 120^th anniversary of Xi’an Jiaotong University’s founding and more than three decades of collaboration with Stanford scholars. Researchers at Xi’an Jiaotong University’s Institute for Population and Development Studies collaborate on policy-relevant research and educational activities with Stanford faculty at FSI as well as the Morrison Institute and Woods Institute.

For more information on FSI’s work in the areas of global health and medicine, please visit this page and the Asia Health Policy Program website.

Image