The 10-year old, extremely popular, and reasonably successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expires in six weeks. Congress and the White House must agree on a reauthorization bill, and so far the parties are far apart.

Here are some key resources to understand the radically different House and Senate bills. Most notably, the House bill is far more expansive and expensive. While the bill is ostensively to reauthorize and expand SCHIP, the House bill would also make dozens of significant changes to both Medicare and Medicaid. The more moderate Senate bill focuses on renewing SCHIP, providing additional federal dollars to cover more children, and proposing higher tobacco taxes to offset the new federal SCHIP costs.

Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (Senate Bill 1893):

The Senate bill, called the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, would extend coverage to an additional 2.2 million children. This is a net figure. An estimated 4.5 million kids would move to SCHIP coverage, but CBO estimates that 1.7 million of these would move from private insurance to SCHIP because of crowd-out and another 600,000 would move from Medicaid to SCHIP. Because of interactions between Medicaid and SCHIP coverage, the Senate bill would increase add, net of crowd-out, about 1.5 million kids to Medicaid.

To sum up, the Senate approach would provide SCHIP or Medicaid health coverage to a net 4 million uninsured children. But about 2.1 million privately insured children would have to move from their existing private insurance coverage to taxpayer financed care. To read the Congressional Budget Office's cost and enrollment estimates for the Senate bill, click here.

Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (HR 3162):

Based on CBO projections, the House bill, called the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, would increase coverage for a net 5 million children. About 3.1 million uninsured kids would be newly covered by Medicaid and about 1.9 million by SCHIP.

Again, because government financed health coverage "crowds out" private coverage, the House bill would cause about 2.5 million insured children to lose existing private coverage and move to taxpayer-funded coverage. Click here to read CBO's cost and enrollment estimates for the House bill, including the bill's many unrelated changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

Before closing, it's important to note that whatever Congress does with SCHIP reauthorization, the program is highly dependent on subsequent state policies, including appropriation of state budget dollars. And several aspects of the Congressional SCHIP proposals would hurt state finances and restrict flexibility, making children's health coverage at the state level more costly and complex.

In health policy, bad ideas never go away. Case in point is the proposal in California to require that health plans spend at least 85% of premium revenue on provider payments. Specifically, as part of his $12 billion Stay Healthy California package of reforms, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes to set a new minimum medical loss ratio for health plans.

In a nutshell, a health insurer's medical loss ratio (MLR) is an accounting construct and relative differences from one health plan to another has absolutely nothing to do with affordability of premiums, access to care, quality of care, patient satisfaction, adequacy of provider networks, or virtually anything else of interest to policy makers.

Further, it is based on a staggering array of faulty assumptions about health care delivery, insurance markets, and the uninsured, and ignorance of the difference between price and value. And artificial medical loss ratio standards result in many unintended consequences, including less competition, fewer consumer options, pushing more people into taxpayer-financed Medicaid and SCHIP, and restricting resources needed to improve quality and reduce medical errors.

Jamie Robinson, Ph.D., professor of economics and chair of the health policy program at the University of California, Berkeley, put it best in a definitive article in Health Affairs:

The medical loss ratio is an accounting monstrosity that enthralls the unsophisticated observer and distorts the policy discourse.

Juxtaposition of low medical loss ratio with forprofit status has fed the flames of HMO bashing but is completely without substance.

Thanks to the hard work of Secretary Kim Belshe and her excellent team, Governor Schwarzenegger's health reform initiative has many components worthy of serious consideration. However, further regulation of medical loss ratios - a long discredited idea that will only hinder the Governor's coverage objectives - is not one of them.

The $7 billion State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is up for reauthorization in Congress this year. SCHIP, which began in October 1997, now covers over four million Americans, primarily children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford commercial health insurance coverage.

Popular with both Democrats and Republicans, SCHIP is certain to be reauthorized by Congress. However, members of Congress differ on whether and to what extent SCHIP should be expanded, how much to increase federal funding, whether SCHIP should be reserved for truly low income children or open to more moderate income families, and whether SCHIP should be used as a vehicle to expand coverage to uninsured workers. In addition, there remain serious questions about how much taxpayer-funded SCHIP has crowded out employer-sponsored coverage.

The policy issues and design options are many. Ultimately, the battle over SCHIP is a microcosm of the larger national debate on what government can or should do about the uninsured, the role of individual and employer responsibility, what is "affordable", what is an adequate package of covered benefits, and much more.

Overview of SCHIP:

Each state, within broad federal guidelines, determines the design of its own program, including eligibility, benefit design, cost sharing, and operating procedures. States may operate SCHIP separately or in conjunction with Medicaid. SCHIP benefits are delivered primarily through health plans under contract with states.

On a federal level, SCHIP is governed by Title XXI of the Social Security Act. However, several states have requested and received Section 1115 waivers to redesign the SCHIP eligibility, cost sharing, and/or benefits.

Unlike Medicaid, which is largely an open-ended entitlement, states may cap SCHIP enrollment and federal funds for SCHIP are capped. This year, unless Congress increases aggregate federal funds for SCHIP, about 16 states may need to either cap enrollment or appropriate additional state funds to maintain the program.

Budget Challenge of Funding Children's Health Coverage:

The best guess is Congress will need to increase the federal cap on SCHIP funding by $12 billion to $15 billion over the next five years to maintain coverage for the four million now enrolled. (During the year, about six million receive coverage at some point and about four million are covered at any given point in time.) Absent either a big increase in the federal cap or a big jump in state-only appropriations to SCHIP, about one million kids will lose coverage.

Resources to Understand SCHIP:

Here are several excellent resources to better understand the State Children's Health Insurance Program:

In health care, states serve as the nation's laboratories of reform - able to test innovations in financing, coverage, regulation, and care delivery. In 2007, states are leading the way on health insurance coverage expansion, leveraging a mix of policies including universal coverage, individual mandates, tax credits and Section 125 plans, and insurance "exchanges" or "connectors" to facilitate buying of affordable health plans.

Because so much is going on and since I do a fair amount of workin this area, several readers of the Piper Report asked me to post some resources on what's going on in the states. So here you go.

State Health Reform Commissions:

Several states have created task forces or study committees to examine options for coverage expansion and make recommendations. Most are appointed by the governor or governor and legislative leaders. A few are special committees of the legislature. Here are states with health reform commissions:

Governors' Health Care Reform Initiatives:

Several governors have announced detailed health reform proposals. Most focus largely or entirely on coverage expansion but several also thankfully include initiatives to improve quality of care, combat medical errors, and/or increase transparency of provider prices and performance.

More Resources on State-Based Health Reform:

Massachusetts, of course, started the ball rolling with its groundbreaking, bipartisan reform initiative in 2006. To learn more, here's an excellent article from BNA's Health Policy Report on the impact of Massachusetts health reform on coverage expansion efforts in others states (PDF).

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) maintains a helpful list of legislative bills on universal coverage proposed in states.

For the best books on health reform, Medicaid, and other hot topics in health care, please visit my book recommendations.

For latest state-specific data on health care coverage and spending, check out the free, easy-to-use tools on StateHealthFacts.org.

Questions on State Health Reform:

Feel free to contact me if you have questions on what's going on in the states.

President Bush has joined the health reform debate with a proposal of his own. The Bush approach is as intriguing as it is controversial.

First, the Administration seeks to reform the federal tax code to change the tax treatment of health insurance premiums and offer new tax deductions to help make coverage more affordable. Second, the White House wants to give states the ability to extend basic coverage to the uninsured by redirecting funds from uncompensated care pools.

Changes to Tax Deductibility of Health Insurance:

Today, most employees are not taxed on the value of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. That is, the employer's share is not taxed and any employee contribution is taken out of income before taxes.

Many health economists believe this pre-tax treatment of health insurance tends, over time, to distort the market by giving a tax incentive to take income in the form of health coverage and insulating most working Americans from the cost of medical care. They argue this contributes to health inflation and creates a costly and unfair playing field for Americans without access to group coverage.

The Bush Administration proposes several major changes to the tax treatment of health insurance premiums:

If the tax changes are enacted, the Bush Administration estimates that about three million individuals who are now uninsured will gain health coverage. Of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage, about 80 percent (roughly 100 million taxpayers) would see a reduction in taxes. For example, a family with an annual income of $60,000 would see tax savings of about $4,500 annually. The other 20 percent - about 30 million, mostly higher income individuals - would see modest increase in their federal tax bill.

From a federal perspective, the proposal is expected to be budget neutral over the first ten years. In the early years, the proposal would cost the federal government $30-40 billion a year. However, by 2013 the changes are expected to increase net federal revenues. This is because it is structured to redistribute dollars in the system, over time taxpayers will tend to gravitate to health plans falling below the deductible amounts, and tax revenues will increase as more compensation shifts from benefits to wages.

Affordable Choices Grants to States:

The second component of the President's health reform package is called the Affordable Choices Initiative. Leveraging existing waiver authority and some likely legislative changes in Medicaid and Medicare, the Administration proposes to give states grants and new flexibility to offer basic, affordable health insurance coverage to the uninsured.

Specifically, the White House wants to allow states to redirect about $30 billion in dollars now used to help hospitals with uncompensated care. Both Medicaid and Medicare have disproportionate share hospital programs. While the methodologies differ, the federal Medicare program and state Medicaid programs use disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments to send additional dollars to hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of uninsured patients.

Given the large number of states engaged in health reform initiatives and the presence of the large pools of dollars, the White House sees a unique opportunity to foster state-based coverage expansions and move dollars to subsidize health plans for the uninsured.

The Administration has also hinted at an interest in using savings that would result from new proposed federal rules to cap Medicaid payments to publicly owned providers. Right now, if the final rules are issued this summer as expected, many states and public hospitals will lose and the feds will pocket the savings for budget purposes.

However, because of the dollars involved and the pressure it places on many states and public providers, the proposed cap on Medicaid payments could be used to sweeten the Affordable Choices Initiative. For some states, it could become a case of "use it or lose it." In addition to giving states and public hospitals an added incentive to come to the table and perhaps soften Congressional opposition, it would add several billion dollars to the pool of funds for state-based coverage expansions.

More Details Forthcoming:

More details on the tax deductibility proposal and the Affordable Choices grants are expected on Monday, February 5, when the White House releases President Bush's proposed budget for FY 2008.

The tax deductibility proposal already faces stiff opposition from key Democrats in Congress. And hospital industry groups are lining up to oppose the Affordable Choices Grants. However, the two proposals certainly contribute to the debate and improve the chances of some major health reform legislation in 2007.

There's a lot of truth in the old joke about the problem with Republicans and Democrats: Republicans need a heart and Democrats need a brain. As Democrats prepare to take control of Congress, they appear eager to prove the joke by pursuing legislation to require government "negotiations" on prescription drug prices in Medicare Part D.

The idea has emotional appeal, so let's see if there is any evidence to support the idea. (If you come from the Bumper Sticker School of Health Policy, stop here. The facts will only confuse you and don't easily make for emotive talking points.)

Non-Interference Requirement in MMA:

In the Medicare Moderation Act, the massive 2003 legislation that created the Medicare Part D drug benefit among other Medicare reforms, Congress prohibited the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from interfering with drug pricing in the competitive market. Part D prescription drug plans - Medicare Advantage drug plans (MA-PDs) and prescription drug plans (PDPs) - would battle among themselves to cut the best deals with pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacies and openly compete for enrollees.

The statute at controversy, found at section 1860D-11(i) of the Social Security Act, is short and sweet:

(i) NONINTERFERENCE. In order to promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part, the Secretary:

(1) may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and PDP sponsors; and

(2) may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs.

Estimated Savings of Federal Drug Price Negotiations:

Supporters of federal staff negotiating drug prices argue that it would generate billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers and seniors. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - the highly respected, non-partisan fiscal advisor to both houses of Congress and the agency that officially scores the cost and savings of all legislative proposals - agrees with top health economists and Medicare experts that federal price negotiations will save precisely zip.

Following passage of MMA, Senate leaders asked CBO to examine the effect of striking the 'noninterference' provision. CBO reported:

We estimate that striking that provision would have a negligible effect on federal spending because CBO estimates that substantial savings will be obtained by the private plans and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce federal spending to a significant degree. Because they will be at substantial financial risk, private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts, both to control their own costs in providing the drug benefit and to attract enrollees with low premiums and cost-sharing requirements.

CBO was then asked if the federal government could save anything if CMS centrally negotiated prices with makers of single-source drugs. (Single-source prescription drugs are brand-name drugs that have no generic equivalent on the market and are generally available from only one manufacturer.) Again, CBO concluded that savings are unlikely, unless of course federal officials are willing to play hardball and restrict patient access to therapeutically unique drugs until the manufacturers agree to government price demands:

Most single-source drugs face competition from other drugs that are therapeutic alternatives. CBO believes that there is little, if any, potential savings from negotiations involving those single-source drugs. We expect that risk-bearing private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts for such drugs and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce federal spending to a significant degree.

Nevertheless, there is potential for some savings if the Secretary were to have the authority to negotiate prices with manufacturers of single-source drugs that do not face competition from therapeutic alternatives. Private plans offering a prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries will have less leverage in negotiating discounts for drugs without therapeutic alternatives than they have in price negotiations for drugs that do face such competition. (In that regard, the Medicare plans will be no different than private health plans that offer prescription drug coverage to other populations.)

Under current law, there already are significant pressures that limit the prices that manufacturers charge for drugs - whether those drugs face competition from therapeutic alternatives or not. Those pressures include the prospects that plans will not cover a drug (or will substantially limit the amount they pay for a drug) and that manufacturers will provoke a backlash (potentially including legislation) if they set prices too high. Moreover, the creation of the Medicare drug benefit has given federal officials greater opportunity and incentive than under prior law to bring pressure on manufacturers - for example, by influencing public opinion and policy makers--if the prices that manufacturers set for single-source drugs that are not subject to competition from therapeutic alternatives are perceived as being too high. Giving the Secretary an additional tool--the authority to negotiate prices with manufacturers of such drugs - would put greater pressure on those manufacturers and could produce some additional savings.

Ample Evidence Against Federal Drug Price Negotiations:

Not only would federal price negotiations save little or nothing compared to the increasingly competitive private marketplace, there are host of other arguments against the idea.

In a fascinating new study - The Human Cost of Federal Price Negotiations: The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Pharmaceutical Innovation - Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D., an economist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress, carefully "estimates the impact that federal negotiation of prescription drug prices would have on pharmaceutical research and development (R & D) investment through 2025."

Dr. Zycher concludes that, while federal price negotiations could save some Medicare dollars, "the longer-term human costs of government price-negotiation...are likely to be large and adverse." Most notably, the data show government mandated negotiations would dramatically reduce the development of new, life-saving drugs (about a dozen annually), resulting in "...a loss of 5 million expected life-years annually, an adverse effect that can be valued conservatively at about $500 billion per year, an amount far in excess of total annual U.S. spending on pharmaceuticals."

In Compromising Quality: The High Cost of Government Drug Purchasing, Edmund F. Haislmaier provides a crisp, devastating critique of the idea of federal drug price negotiations. He disects the core myths and outlines how it would only serve to threaten quality and access.

Proponents of government price negotiations assume that Medicare has more bargaining leverage than the private sector. In Why the New Congress Should Not Fix Drug Prices, researcher Greg D'Angelo does a nice job dismantling this faulty assumption.

Wait, It Gets Worse:

Many advocates of federal negotiations point to the VA's prescription drug program as an example of how to reduce drug prices. As I have explained to many audiences, comparing the VA approach to Medicare Part D is not even an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like comparing apples and poodles - and makes as much sense.

A groundbreaking study, by Frank R. Lichtenberg, Ph.D. of the Columbia School of Business, should put such comparisons to rest. In Older Drugs, Shorter Lives? An Examination of the Health Effects of the Veterans Health Administration Formulary, Dr. Lichtenberg shows the VH approach is not about prices or genuine negotiations. With the VA's tight budget, it is all about restricting veterans' access to new (and many old) medications to save dollars and hit budget targets.

The VA's highly restrictive national formulary excludes 62% of drugs approved by the FDA during the 1990's and 81% of new medications approved since 2000. Even worse, the drug benefit designed for our nation's veterans does not pay for a staggering 78% of new, high-priority prescription drugs approved by the FDA on an expedited basis since 1997 because of their life-saving impact. By comparison, commercial health plans, Medicare Part D drug plans, and state Medicaid programs cover the vast majority of new drugs and move quick to add coverage for most drugs given fast-track by the FDA.

Dr. Lichtenberg's 2005 study shows that the VA's prescription drug system - seen by many as the "model" for Medicare Part D - reduced the life span and survival rates of vets since its 1997 introduction. Note to Congress: Death is always cheaper than life but rarely preferable.

Recap:

So, let's recap. Even putting aside the dangers of a massive increase in government power, fact it would dramatically reduce consumer and physician decision making, fact it would shift costs to other payors, and fact it would inevitably lead to economically disastrous price controls, the federal government negotiating drug prices will likely save little or nothing - unless Congress wants to severely restrict patient access to new and existing medications, thereby shortening lives, reducing quality of life, and increasing costs well beyond any savings. And that's if it's even feasible for CMS to do it. Trust me, it's not.

Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plans (MA-SNPs) are a fast growing innovation in the marketplace. A new Medicare managed care option created under the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), MA-SNPs are able to tailor plan designs and delivery to serve the needs of dual eligibles, beneficiaries in nursing homes or at risk of institutionalization, and beneficiaries with chronic, severe conditions.

For CY 2006, there are 276 federally approved MA-SNPs with an enrollment of over 500,000. More insurers are jumping in to offer Special Needs Plans in 2007 and others are moving to market the new plans to millions of high-cost, high-need Medicare beneficiaries. Given this competition and the many advantages of MA-SNPs for dual eligibles and other chronically ill beneficiaries, MA-SNP should exceed one million in 2007 and two million in 2008.

As I reported earlier, states and CMS are working to dovetail Medicare's requirements for MA-SNPs and state and federal requirements for Medicaid managed care organizations (MMCOs). The objective is to provide states with an exciting new voluntary option to integrate health care for the nation's 6.3 million dual eligibles.

In close collaboration with the National Association of State Medicaid Directors (NASMD), CMS has released a new guide for states on integrating Medicaid and Medicare services and a series of how-to guides on integrating enrollment, marketing, and quality assurance.

To learn more about MA-SNPs or integrated Medicare-Medicaid health plans, check out my earlier posts or contact me for more resources.

In the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), Congress authorized the new $150 million Medicaid Transformation Grant Program to help states design and implement reforms to increase quality and efficiency of Medicaid. This is a unique opportunity to help states restructure and modernize Medicaid, save taxpayer dollars, and improve services. But states must act fast to take advantage.

State Medicaid agencies may submit grant proposals to CMS by September 15, 2006. For grants, CMS has a total budget of $75 million in FFY 2007 and another $75 million in FFY 2008. The amount of each grant will vary and will depend on the number of applications received. State matching funds are not required.

While states have wide discretion in proposing projects and may propose multiple projects in a single grant application, CMS is encouraging states to look at ways to improve Medicaid program operations and efficiency.

In the area of improving Medicaid program efficiency, CMS is particularly interested in grant projects to:

CMS is also interested in projects to improve the effectiveness of Medicaid. Examples include projects on:

In the arena of improved care delivery, CMS is particularly interested in grant proposals to:

This is a unique, one-time opportunity for states but, with grant applications due in six weeks, the timeline is tight. States needing help or advice in writing an application may contact me or my friends at Sellers Feinberg for assistance.

Patient-centered care - one of the new buzz phrases in health care - is all about aligning the delivery of medical care with the needs and preferences of patients. Research shows that the practices and tools of patient-centered care result in:

Unfortunately, despite overwhelming support of the medical community and patient advocates, only 22 percent of physicians practice patient-centered care.

Patient-Centered Care Defined:

Patient-centered care is one of the six essential components of high quality medical care, according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the respected healthcare arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The IOM defines patient-centered care as:

Health care that establishes a partnership among practitioners, patients, and their families (when appropriate) to ensure that decisions respect patients' wants, needs, and preferences and that patients have the education and support they need to make decisions and participate in their own care.

Key Components of Patent-Centered Care:

At its core, patient-centered care is all about improved patient-provider communication, where patients and providers collaborate for the benefit of the patient. Ideally, patient-centered care delivery involves an array of tools and practices, including:

To learn more, check out these resources:

The Commonwealth Fund's excellent initiatives on patient-centered care.

Report from the Economic and Social Research Institute on the key components of patient-centered care that are unique to underserved populations.

Tools from the HHS Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Using new flexibility created by the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), states may restructure Medicaid benefits. States may now customize Medicaid health care benefits to specific populations, model some benefit package after commercial-like health plans, and offer additional benefits as incentives to reward healthier patient behavior.

Based on the concept of benchmark benefit packages first used in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the new restructuring options are expected to save $11 billion over the next ten years (about $6 billion federal savings, $5 billion state savings) and ultimately affect 1.6 million Medicaid beneficiaries.

Kentucky, West Virginia, and Idaho are the first states to use the new options. With help from leading consultants, other states are exploring ways to use DRA flexibility to reform some benefit packages and section 1115 waivers to modernize Medicaid, contain costs, and expand coverage.

Here is a quick briefing on Medicaid benchmark coverage permitted under the DRA:

1. Through the state plan amendment (SPA) process, states may provide Medicaid benefits through benchmark or benchmark equivalent packages for children and some non-disabled adults. The benchmark packages would replace existing Medicaid benefits for the targeted populations.

2. The newly designed benefit packages may include wrap-around services or additional benefits not now covered by the state's Medicaid program. Every benchmark benefit package must cover Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) services for children under 19, federally qualified health center (FQHC) services, and rural health clinic services.

3. Benchmark coverage means the same health benefit package offered by (a) the state for state employees, (b) standard Blue Cross Blue Shield Plan offered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), (c) the state’s largest commercial HMO, or (d) other models approved by the HHS Secretary.

4. Benchmark-equivalent coverage means a package with the same actuarial value as one of the benchmark plans. If a state uses this route, benchmark-equivalent coverage must include (a) inpatient and outpatient hospital services, (b) physician services, (c) lab and x-ray services, (d) well child care and immunizations, and (e) other preventive services designated by the Secretary. For prescription drugs, mental health services, and hearing and vision services, a benchmark-equivalent package must provide at least 75 percent of the actuarial value of coverage. States must use generally accepted actuarial principles and methodologies.

5. States may only use benchmark or benchmark-equivalent packages to beneficiary groups already covered under the state Medicaid plan. Therefore, by itself, the DRA benchmark package option cannot be used to expand health coverage to new populations.

6. In addition, many beneficiary groups are exempt from benchmark coverage, including (a) dual eligibles, (b) persons with disabilities or special health care needs, (c) beneficiaries needing long-term care services, (d) foster care children, (d) pregnant women with federally mandated coverage, and (e) individuals eligible for Medicaid via the TANF welfare reform law.

Medicare drug plans will dramatically increase coverage of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs in 2007 based on new guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

In creating Medicare Part D, the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) excluded OTCs from coverage. Taxpayer dollars could not be used to pay for OTC products even when clinically appropriate and cost effective. This was in sharp contrast to pharmacy benefit designs common in commercial coverage and Medicaid, where employers, states, health plans, and PBMs try to take advantage of new, inexpensive OTC alternatives to popular prescription drugs.

For 2006, CMS allowed Medicare prescription drug plans (PDPs) and Medicare Advantage drug plans (MA-PDs) to cover OTCs under narrow circumstances. For example, OTC coverage was limited to federally approved step therapy programs, with no prior authorization for the OTC. To pay for OTC products, drug plans must use administrative dollars and not federal benefit dollars.

For 2007, CMS is loosening restrictions on PDP and MA-PD coverage of safe, effective over-the-counter drugs that are less expensive than prescription alternatives in the plan's formulary. Medicare drug plans must still use administrative dollars because of the statutory limit. However, OTC products may be covered outside of a step therapy program. To ensure Part D enrollees have continued access to prescription versions, drug plans that decide to cover OTCs outside a federally-approval step therapy protocol may not use prior authorization or other tools to require OTC use before a formulary legend drug is covered. Plans must also educate enrollees on differences between the prescription and non-prescription available for a given need.

Compared to their prescription alternatives, OTCs often represent savings of 60-70 percent or more. Seniors tend to be heavy users of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antihistamines - categories with low-cost OTC alternatives likely appropriate for many patients. Therefore, next year many Medicare drug plans will likely offer free OTCs to drive utilization, reduce costs, ease the doughnut hole, and improve enrollee satisfaction and retention.

In addition to reducing costs for drug plans and many beneficiaries, wider access to OTCs in Part D may also reduce state Medicaid spending. Under MMA, 6 million dual eligibles were moved from Medicaid to Medicare for purposes of most drug coverage. However, Medicaid drug coverage is broader than Medicare Part D in many states. To save dollars, most states cover some OTCs. If a state Medicaid program covers an OTC for one group of Medicaid recipients, federal law requires the state to cover the OTC for all, including dual eligibles. The continued overlap of Medicare and Medicaid drug coverage for duals creates opportunities for confusion, cost shifting, even gaming. But the new OTC coverage options in Part D should allow states to save some Medicaid pharmacy dollars - provided CMS is proactive in working cooperatively with states, drug plans, and pharmacies on the issue.

While drug plans and beneficiaries will win - and states may win - from the new OTC coverage guidance, pharmacies will lose because of lower product and dispensing fee revenue. Some pharmaceutical manufacturers will also lose, notably those prescription drug makers facing competing OTCs in hot categories like proton pump inhibitors.

Using new benefit design and cost-sharing options created by the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), states are busy restructuring Medicaid programs. With recently announced approvals from HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Idaho are the first states to take advantage of DRA flexibility.

With the help of top advisors, other states are working on their own Medicaid initiatives, using a mix of DRA options and creative Section 1115 waivers.

Here's a quick summary of the new Medicaid reforms in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Idaho:

Kentucky Medicaid Reform:

Kentucky will offer benefit packages aimed at meeting the health care needs of three different groups: (1) children, (2) the elderly and people with disabilities who need institutional care, and (3) the general Medicaid population.

Through four new benefit packages, Medicaid enrollees will be offered the most appropriate benefit plan based on their needs:

1. The Family Choices program will serve healthy children.

2. Comprehensive Choices and Optimum Choices will serve individuals with complex health care needs.

3. Global Choices, which is most similar to Kentucky's traditional Medicaid program, will serve other vulnerable populations.

Kentucky's Medicaid restructuring includes a new disease management program with special incentives to encourage healthier behavior by chronically ill beneficiaries. After successfully participating in a disease management program for one year, participants will be eligible for services not otherwise available, such as dental or vision services.

The Kentucky reform program will also help Medicaid recipients buy employer-sponsored coverage. If a beneficiary chooses their employer's plan instead of Medicaid, the state will help cover the premium.

West Virginia Medicaid Reform:

West Virginia will offer enrollees a choice of two benefit packages:

1. A Basic plan modeled after current Medicaid benefits.

2. An Enhanced plan that includes a broader range of health services in exchange for complying with all recommended medical treatment and wellness behaviors.

The new benefits under the Enhanced plan will include tobacco cessation, nutritional education, diabetes care, chemical dependency services, mental health services, cardiac rehabilitation, chiropractic services, and emergent dental services.

West Virginia's Enhanced plan will also cover skilled nursing care, orthotics, and prosthetics for children. Both the Basic and Enhanced plans will cover Early, Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services for children.

To enroll in the Enhanced benefit, beneficiaries must sign a member agreement stating they will comply with all recommended medical treatment and wellness behaviors. The Basic plan - with the standard Medicaid package - is the default benefit for those who chose not to join the Enhanced plan or who decide they want to leave the Enhanced plan.

Idaho Medicaid Reform:

Idaho will offer three new benefit packages aimed at meeting the health care needs of different groups: children, people with disabilities, and beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare (aka dual eligibles).

All three new packages - Basic, Enhanced, and Coordinated - are voluntary. Any enrollee who chooses one of the new plans can opt out and return to standard Medicaid at any time they wish.

Here are some details on Idaho's three plans:

1. The Basic plan will serve healthy children and adults and will cover most of traditional Medicaid benefits, including EPSDT services for children. However, the Basic plan will not cover long-term care, organ transplants, and intensive mental health treatment.

2. The Enhanced plan is designed to serve individuals with more complex medical needs, most notably the elderly and disabled. The Enhanced plan will cover all the traditional Medicaid benefits, including long-term care. Beneficiaries enrolled in the Basic plan who need services not available in that plan will be moved to the Enhanced plan.

3. The Coordinated plan will serve dual eligibles. It will include all services now covered under Idaho's traditional Medicaid program. For coverage under the Coordinated plan, dual eligibles must also be enrolled in Medicare Part B and Part D.

Each of these benefit plans will include new preventive services, including nutrition services and other benefits to help smokers, the obese, and others adopt healthier habits.

Idaho's Medicaid restructuring includes several other important reforms:

1. The working disabled may purchase the basic benefit package.

2. Eligibility for children in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) will be streamlined. This includes elimination of an asset test for some children.

3. Using SCHIP dollars, the state will help schools offer preventive health services to low-income children.

To learn about the Massachusetts health care reform initiative, here are two podcasts on this groundbreaking new program to cover virtually all the uninsured in the Commonwealth.

For Sellers, Feinberg and Associates, the lead consultants on the Massachusetts reform project, I host a biweekly podcast on hot issues in Medicaid. These concise audio briefings help state leaders and business executives keep tabs with Medicaid on Capitol Hill and CMS.

In Part 1 of the special audio briefing on the Massachusetts health reform initiative, Marty Sellers, President and founder of Sellers Feinberg, describes the key components of the Massachusetts initiative, how it was developed, and implications for other states and the healthcare market.

In Part 2, Peggy Handrich, the former Wisconsin Medicaid director and now leader of Sellers Feinberg's strategic Medicaid consulting practice, describes the key financial and programmatic characteristics of the Massachusetts health reform.

To listen directly on your computer, click here for Part 1 and here for Part 2. The podcasts are in the popular MP3 format, so you may also right-click to save and upload them to your iPod or other MP3 player for listening on the road.

For a useful two-page fact sheet on the Massachusetts health care reform plan, click here (PDF).

To subscribe to receive the free podcasts on Medicaid, please contact Sellers Feinberg. The folks there are working with a number of other states on health reform and Medicaid restructuring initiatives.

Being a Medicare prescription drug plan can be a profitable business. For the smart players, it will be highly profitable over time and indispensable to market position. But Medicare Part D can also be financially risky and volatile - particularly given:

Coming on the heels of Medicare Part D and the new Part B drug-pricing schema based on Average Sales Price (ASP), the new Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) for Medicare Part B drugs and biologics represents yet another major change to the pharmaceutical supply chain. While it is too early to reliably predict the impact or even viability of CAP, it's critical for players to understand the initiative. Ultimately, CAP may have a dramatic impact on drug manufacturers, distributors, physicians, and beneficiaries.

Road to Average Sales Price (ASP):

While Medicare Part B drug coverage is complex, generally speaking Part B drug coverage is limited to physician-administered drugs and therefore primarily injectibles. Prior to the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Medicare reimbursed physician offices for Part B drugs based on percentages of Average Wholesale Price (AWP). Physicians would buy what they need, administer drugs to patients as necessary, charge beneficiaries for their deductible and 20% Part B co-payment, and bill Medicare for the drug and the office visit.

This approach was widely criticized by MedPAC, GAO, and the OIG as well as outside experts. Under the AWP-based system, Medicare drug payments were far higher than other payors. It also meant higher patient co-payments. However, in fairness to physicians, in many ways the higher drug reimbursement helped make up for Medicare's below-market office visit rates.

Under MMA, Congress changed that way Medicare reimburses physicians for drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B. Since January 2005, Medicare reimburses physicians using a new formula based on Average Sales Price (ASP). For most Part B drugs, physician offices are now paid 106% of ASP.

In brief, ASP is what a pharma or biotechnology company makes on a given product, net of rebates and other price concessions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) calculates ASP using net sales data provided by drug makers. Medicare adds 6% to help cover physicians' costs of buying, storing, and billing. The new ASP-based payment system results in substantial savings to Medicare but of course also lower revenues for physicians.

Basics of the Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP):

Starting in July 2006, physicians will have an alternative to buying and billing for Part B drugs and ASP-based payment. The upcoming Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) will give physicians the option of obtaining most Part B drugs needed by Medicare patients from vendors selected by CMS. Medicare physicians may elect to participate in CAP on an annual basis.

The CMS-approved vendors, selected through competitive bidding, will negotiate with manufacturers, buy and distribute supplies to physicians, bill beneficiaries for any applicable deductible and coinsurance, and bill Medicare's designated national carrier for drug costs. The carrier will pay the CAP vendor after verifying that the physician administered the drug. To do this, the carrier will match the CAP vendor's claim for the drug with the corresponding physician claim for drug administration. Following this verification, the CAP vendor will bill the beneficiary (or the beneficiary's Medigap policy or other third party insurance) for applicable cost sharing.

For the Part B drug categories they have selected, physicians opting for CAP will receive all of those drugs (used for Medicare patients) from the approved CAP vendor. Physician offices participating in CAP will continue to bill Medicare as usual for the drug administration fee and other office fees.

Under certain conditions, a participating CAP physician may provide a drug to a Medicare beneficiary from his or her own stock and obtain the replacement drug from the CAP vendor. There is also an exception for "furnish as written" situations when the physician specifies that a certain brand of a drug is medically necessary and that drug is not available from the CAP vendor. In those cases, the participating CAP physician may buy the drug, administer it to the beneficiary, and bill Medicare using the ASP system.

CAP Bidding and Contracting:

Every three years, CMS will solicit bids from qualifying vendors - primarily major distributors and specialty pharmacy shops. MMA gives CMS the authority to select drugs or categories of drugs that will be included in the program. Drugs may be excluded from the CAP if competition will not result in significant savings compared to the ASP system or when necessary to avoid disruption in access to a drug.

In April, CMS is expected to announce the CAP vendors for the program's July 1, 2006 start.

Market Implications of CAP:

In an upcoming story, I will comment on the implications of CAP for drug manufacturers, drug distributors, and physicians.

Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plans (MA-SNPs) are an important new innovation in the healthcare marketplace. Ultimately, as I reported last fall in the Piper Report, MA-SNPs may evolve to serve an untapped $250 billion market. Here's a quick briefing on Special Needs Plans and how they become integrated Medicaid / Medicare health plans:

Brief History of Medicare Managed Care:

Since 1970's, Medicare has included an HMO option as alternative to receiving all Medicare Part A and Part B services from traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) renamed Medicare managed care to "Medicare+Choice" and added a new range of options for Medicare beneficiaries: preferred provider organizations (PPOs), provider-sponsored organizations (PSOs), private fee-for-service (PFFS) plans, and Medical savings accounts (MSAs) linked with high deductible insurance plans.

Medicare Modernization Act of 2003:

In addition to creating the new Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) renamed Medicare+Choice to "Medicare Advantage" (MA) and created new MA plan options for beneficiaries - regional preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and "Special Needs Plans" for dual eligibles, the institutionalized, or those with severe and disabling conditions. MMA also created new incentives for health plan participation in the over $300 billion Medicare market, most notably risk adjustment to Medicare Advantage plan premiums and increased Medicare Advantage plan premiums.

Basics of Medicare Advantage:

The Medicare Advantage program is governed under Medicare Part C, which refers to Part C of Title XVIII of the federal Social Security Act. Medicare Advantage (MA) plans provide all Medicare-covered benefits under Part A and Part B and serve as an alternative to traditional Medicare fee-for-service. Most kinds of MA plans (including all the most popular ones) must also offer a