LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Remove restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)24 imposed restrictions prohibiting Medicare from reimbursing physician-owned and specialty hospitals. The current restrictions do little more than serve the special interests of large hospital systems and undercut consumer choice of high-quality, specialty care. These restrictions should be removed so that physician-owned hospitals can compete with other hospitals in serving Medicare patients.25 Encourage more direct competition between Medicare Advantage and private plans. Medicare Advantage (MA), a system of competing private health plans, is the major alternative to traditional Medicare for America’s large and growing cohort of seniors. The program provides beneficiaries with a wide range of competitive health plan choices—a richer set of benefits than traditional Medicare provides and at a reasonable cost. Equally as important, the MA program has been registering consistently high marks for superior performance in delivering high-quality care. Critical reforms are still needed to strengthen and improve the program for the future. Specifically:

1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option.
2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars.
3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans.
4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model.
5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model.
6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA)

Medicare should:

Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs.

Codify price transparency regulations.

Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29

Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication.

This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in

Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service.

the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share. Until the IRA is repealed, an Administration that is required to implement it must do so in a way that is prudent with its authority, minimizing the harmful effects of the law’s policies and avoiding even worse unintended consequences.30

Medicaid. Over the past 45 years, Medicaid and the health safety net have evolved into a cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state. The program is failing some of the most vulnerable patients; is a prime target for waste, fraud, and abuse; and is consuming more of state and federal budgets. The dramatic increase in Medicaid expenditures is due in large part to the ACA (Obamacare), which mandates that states must expand their Medicaid eligibility standards to include all individuals at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and the public health emergency, which has prohibited states from performing basic eligibility reviews.

The overlap of available benefits among the various health agencies has led to a complex, confusing system that is nearly impossible to navigate—even for recipients. Recipients are often faced with a “welfare cliff” of benefit losses as they earn above a certain amount, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of empowering individuals to achieve economic independence. Benefits increasingly involve nonmedical services such as air conditioning and housing, many of which are already handled by departments other than HHS.

Improper payments within Medicaid are higher than those of any other federal program. These payments are evidence of the inappropriateness of Medicaid’s expansion, which, stemming largely from public health emergency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and the Affordable Care Act, has crowded out the primary targets of these programs: those who are most in need. True health care reform cannot be accomplished in a bureaucratic silo or only through Medicaid and health safety net programs. Reform of the tax code is also essential to genuine, effective reform of our health care system. All components of the health care system should be part of the reform efforts, and it is imperative that the system be modified to assist states with their current programs. Therefore, the next Administration should:

Reform financing. Allow states to have a more flexible, accountable, predictable, transparent, and efficient financing mechanism to deliver medical services. This system should include a more balanced or blended match rate, block grants, aggregate caps, or per capita caps. Any financial system should be designed to encourage and incentivize innovation and the efficient delivery of health care services. Federal and state financial participation in the Medicaid program should be rational, predictable, and reasonable. It should also incentivize states to save money and improve the quality of health care.

Direct dollars to beneficiaries more effectively and responsibly. The current funding structure for the Medicaid program rewards expansions, lacks transparency, and promotes financing gimmicks. CMS should:

End state financing loopholes. 2. Reform payments to hospitals for uncompensated care. 3. Replace the enhanced match rate with a fairer and more rational match rate. 4. Restructure basic financing and put the program on a more fiscally predictable budget (which should include reform of Disproportionate Share Hospital payments to hospitals).31

Strengthen program integrity. Make program integrity a top priority and the responsibility of the states. To protect the taxpayers’ investment: 1. 2. Improve Medicaid eligibility standards to protect those in need. As Medicaid enrollment continues to climb, it is imperative that there are appropriate and accurate eligibility standards to ensure that the program remains focused on serving those who are in need. To this end, CMS should:

a. Hold states accountable for improper eligibility determinations. b. Require more robust eligibility determinations. c. Strengthen asset test determinations within Medicaid.32 3. Conduct oversight and reform of managed care.33 l Incentivize personal responsibility. CMS should allow states to ensure that Medicaid recipients have a stake in their personal health care and a say in decisions related to the Medicaid program. Personal responsibility

Incentivize states. An enhanced contingency fee should be paid to states that successfully increase their efforts to decrease waste, fraud, and abuse. The current system’s IT development 90/10 matching rate should be allowed for improvements in states’ current fraud and abuse and eligibility systems. Innovative programs that show a positive return on investment for both the state and federal governments should be allowed without the onerous waiver process. and consumer choice for Medicaid recipients must go together as standard components of the safety net, especially for able-bodied recipients. Medicaid recipients, like the rest of Americans, should be given both the freedom to choose their health plans and the responsibility to contribute to their health care costs at a level that is appropriate to protect the taxpayer.

Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups. For example, CMS should launch a robust “personal option” to allow families to use Medicaid dollars to secure coverage outside of the Medicaid program. CMS should also:

Clarify that states have the ability to adopt work incentives for able- bodied individuals (similar to what is required in other welfare programs) and the ability to broaden the application of targeted premiums and cost sharing to higher-income enrollees.

2. Add targeted time limits or lifetime caps on benefits to disincentivize permanent dependence.34

Allow private health insurance. Congress should allow states the option of contributing to a private insurance benefit for all members of the family in a flexible account that rewards healthy behaviors. This reform should also allow catastrophic coverage combined with an account similar to a health savings account (HSA) for the direct purchase of health care and payment of cost sharing for most of the population.

Increase flexible benefit redesign without waivers. CMS should add flexibility to eliminate obsolete mandatory and optional benefit requirements and, for able-bodied recipients, eliminate benefit mandates that exceed those in the private market. This should include flexibility to redesign eligibility, financing, and service delivery of long-term care to serve the most vulnerable and truly needy and eliminate middle-income to upper- income Medicaid recipients.

Eliminate current waiver and state plan processes. CMS should allow providers to make payment reforms without cumbersome waivers or state plan amendment processes where possible. More broadly, the federal government’s role should be oversight on broad indicators like cost effectiveness and health measures like quality, health improvement, and wellness and should give the balance of responsibility for Medicaid program management to states. This reform would include adding Section 111535 waiver requirements in some cases (such as imposing work requirements for able-bodied adults) while rescinding requirements in others (such as non–health care benefits and services related to climate change).