How will access to contraception coverage fare in light of the ACA repeal?

With the uncertainty about continued contraception coverage, a number of states have either enacted or introduced legislation to ensure that individuals continue to have access to contraception coverage and the number of women inquiring about birth control has increased. Since the November election and, in the wake of the imminent repeal of Obamacare, requests for intrauterine devices (IUDs) have been increasing significantly. Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, told CNN on January 9, 2017, that the demand for IUDs, a form of long-term birth control, has shot up 900 percent at Planned Parenthood branches because women “are desperately concerned that they will lose their access to health care,” SFGate news reported.

A December 7, 2016, Kaiser Family Foundation report that addressed private insurance coverage of contraception stated that many states have mandated minimum benefits for decades, including contraceptive coverage. Moreover, since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148), states have strengthened and expanded the federal contraceptive coverage requirement. Among those states that have recently adopted contraceptive laws expanding ACA mandates for contraceptive coverage are New York, California, Oregon, Illinois, and Vermont.

New York

On January 11, 2017,  New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman introduced “The Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act of 2017” (CCCA), legislation that would provide access to cost-free contraception for women and expand coverage to men to ensure the continuation of contraception coverage under state law in light of Republicans’ goal of repealing the ACA.  The CCCA would (1) statutorily require state-governed health insurance policies to provide cost-free coverage for all FDA-approved methods of birth control, including emergency contraception, (2) prohibit insurance companies from “medical management” review restrictions that can limit or delay contraceptive coverage; (3) cover men’s contraceptive methods and bring their insurance coverage in line with the benefits enjoyed by women; and (4) allow for the provision of a year’s worth of a contraceptive at a time.

Crain’s New York Business addressed a number of items that are at stake in terms of women’s access to health care in New York under Donald Trump’s presidency. Although New York’s contraception legislation “has taken on new urgency for advocates since Trump’s victory,” the bill faces opposition from insurers because the provisions go beyond the ACA mandates, Crain’s predicted. In addition, Crain’s pointed out that Republicans in Congress will renew their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, noting that access to services such as breast exams, Pap tests, STD screenings and family planning are most likely at risk of elimination for female Medicaid enrollees. Finally, abortion rights in New York might be curtailed if President-elect Trump’s Supreme Court judge appointee provides the Court with a majority of votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion under the 14th amendment. New York state law allows an abortion after 24 weeks only if it’s a matter of life and death for the woman, while constitutional law allows a woman to get a late-stage abortion if an anomaly poses a serious risk to her health or makes the fetus unviable, Crain’s explained.

Other States

In 2014, California passed the Contraceptive Coverage Equity Act of 2014 that requires plans to cover prescribed FDA-approved contraceptives for women without cost-sharing. In April of 2016, under the law, girls and women are able to drop by their neighborhood pharmacy and pick up birth control such as pills, patches, and injections without a doctor’s prescription but must speak with a pharmacist and fill out a questionnaire. Starting in January 2016, health plans were required to provide access to the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the FDA, including a variety of IUDs, for all insured individuals without cost-sharing, delays, or denial of coverage.

In 2015, Oregon passed two laws in 2015  expanding women’s access to birth control that became effective January 1, 2015.  HR2879 permits pharmacists to prescribe hormonal contraceptive patches and self-administered oral hormonal contraceptives, while HR3343 requires insurers to pay for a three-month supply of contraceptives when first prescribed, followed by a 12 month supply of contraceptives regardless of whether the woman was insured by the same plan at the time of the first dispensing. This law applies to oral contraceptive pills, the patch, and the vaginal ring.

The State Journal Register reported that Illinois adopted House Bill 5576, which will take effect January 1, 2017. Under the law, all ACA options must be covered without co-payments or deductibles, at least for women covered through health plans regulated by the state and plans that cover state employees, retirees, and their dependents. In addition, insurance companies must allow women to get a 12 month supply all at once.

The Burlington Free Press reported that Vermont legislation includes mandates from the ACA in the state law, but also expands upon the mandates to include additional birth-control methods, such as vasectomies. The bill specifies the 12 contraceptive products and services that must be included in health insurance plans as well as restrictions on cost-sharing for contraceptive services. It directs the Department of Vermont Health Access to establish 15 value-based payments for the insertion and removal of long-acting reversible contraceptives comparable to those for oral contraceptives.

Conclusion

Whether Congress repeals the ACA mandates requiring health insurance plans to provide contraceptive coverage and defunds Planned Parenthood is not certain. As of this writing, Congress has already taken initial steps to repeal the law. It remains to be seen if the actions the states have taken to ensure that both men and women have access to contraception under state law will hold up, and whether states that have introduced bills to ensure coverage will progress to enactment in the face of strong opposition.

 

‘Mid-build’ outpatient departments: submit paperwork soon to qualify for OPPS exemption

Off-campus provider-based hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) that qualify for the mid-build exception must submit the required materials to their Medicare Administrative Contractor by February 13, 2017, to qualify for the exception for services provided in 2018. The hospital must (1) attest that department requirements are met; (2) include the department on the provider’s enrollment form; and (3) and submit a written certification that the department met the mid-build requirement that is signed by the CEO or COO of the main provider. All attestations must be audited by HHS for accuracy.

Outpatient prospective payment changes

Under the 2017 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) Final rule (81 FR 79562), CMS implemented section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act (P.L. 114-74), which disallows payment made to off-campus HOPDs under the OPPS (see OPPS, ASC payment rates updated; off-campus PBD billing system established, Health Law Daily, November 2, 2016). This provision was created to ensure that services are billed at a uniform rate, regardless of the facility in which the services are provided.

21st Century Cures Act

Section 16001 of the 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114-255) provides an important “mid-build” exception for off-campus HOPDs that had a written contract with an outside party for construction of the facility before November 2, 2015. CMS’ preliminary guidance outlines the requirements for HOPDs that qualify for the 2018 exception. It also clarifies that attestations received from providers before December 2, 2015, qualifies that provider for the exception, and that these HOPDs should continue to use the ‘PO’ modifier when billing, rather than the ‘PN’ modifier. Those that did not submit timely attestations are to use ‘PN,’ which triggers the Medicare physician fee schedule (MPFS) payment.

The Cures Act also excepted HOPDs of cancer hospitals from the change to OPPS. Departments that met the requirements of 42 C.F.R. section 413.65 between November 1, 2015, and December 13, 2016, will qualify, as long as attestation is received February 13, 2017. HOPDs of cancer hospitals that meet regulatory requirements after December 13, 2016, will be exempt as long as an attestation is received within 60 days of meeting the requirements.

Highlight on Alaska: Alaskan fund reminiscent of high risk pools–Will the country follow suit?

In the summer of 2016, Alaska’s Republican legislature passed, and the independent governor signed into law, a bill that established a state health insurance fund to stabilize rates and cover the medical costs incurred by high-usage insured individuals with insurance companies. The fund is reminiscent of high-risk insurance pools that existed prior to the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148), when individuals could still be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and had difficulty obtaining insurance. Although the law was a reaction to rising costs among Alaskans and Alaska’s insurers, other states may follow suit, now that President-Elect Donald Trump has indicated that his administration will “work with both Congress and the states to re-establish high-risk pools.”

Alaska’s small population is subject to high health care costs.  Only 23,000 Alaskans enrolled in the non-group market in 2016.  Average monthly marketplace premiums were $863 pre-advance premium tax credit (APTC) in Alaska, according to an April HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) report, compared to $396 in the rest of the nation. Premiums rose by more than 31 percent in 2016 in Alaska, compared to just over 1 percent nationally, and not all marketplace enrollees qualified for premium tax credits. Only one insurer, Premera Blue Cross, will remain in the marketplace in 2017. Notably, Premera insured 8,500 people in 2015, but nearly one-quarter of its monetary claims arose from only 37 cases.

House Bill (HB) 374, which was signed into law in July 2016, earmarks $55 million accrued through an existing 2.7 percent premium tax on all Alaskan insurers–not only health insurers–for a comprehensive health insurance fund. The fund provides insurers with money to cover the costs of claims incurred by high-risk residents. The bill sunsets in two years, but allows the state to apply for a state innovation waiver under section 1332 of the ACA.

The incoming federal administration, however, has stated its plans to repeal the ACA and replace it with new legislation.  Other states may consider following Alaska’s lead in order to continue to provide insurance to those individuals with the greatest need for it.

Highlight on Arkansas: medical marijuana amendment approved

On November 8, 2016, Arkansas voters approved Issue 6, the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment which amended the state’s constitution, by a margin of 53 percent in favor to 47 percent against, and became the first state in the South to legalize medical marijuana. The governor had voiced his opposition to the measure. With the approval, more than half of the states in the U.S. have now legalized medical marijuana.

A “yes” vote supported legalizing medical marijuana for 17 qualifying conditions, creating a Medical Marijuana Commission, and allocating tax revenue to technical institutes, vocational schools, workforce training, and the state’s general fund. A “no” vote opposed the amendment to legalize medical marijuana. The amendment will allow patients with a variety of medical conditions, including cancer, Tourette’s syndrome, Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and HIV/AIDS, along with a doctor’s permission to buy marijuana from dispensaries. Patients, however, won’t be allowed to grow their own marijuana.

The Arkansas Department of Health was given up to 120 days to adopt rules for various provisions of the amendment, including, but not limited to:

  1. applications for and renewals of registry identification cards;
  2. labeling and testing standards for marijuana distributed to patients;
  3. care givers assisting patients who are physically disabled or under the age of 18;
  4. requirements for oversight, recordkeeping, security requirements for dispensaries and cultivation facilities;
  5. the manufacture, processing, packaging, and dispensing of marijuana to patients;
  6. procedures for suspending or terminating the licenses of dispensaries and cultivation facilities that violate the provisions of the amendment;
  7. procedures for inspections and investigations of dispensaries and cultivation facilities; and
  8. advertising restrictions for dispensaries and cultivation facilities;

A separate marijuana question had been approved, but Arkansas’ Supreme Court last month directed that votes not be counted. Justices said the petition lacked enough valid signatures. In 2012, Arkansas voted on the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Question, which failed to garner enough support. Following the approval of Issue 6, opponents vowed to fight the amendment in the Arkansas legislature.