Short-Term Limited Duration Insurance Can Now Be Less Short-Term

Short-term, limited-duration insurance was designed as a temporary gap-filler while a person transitions from one kind of health insurance to a different plan or coverage. In 2016, recognizing its serious limitations, an Obama Administration rule mandated that coverage of short-term, limited-duration insurance be limited to three months, including any period of renewal.

But due to a final rule in August 2018 from the Trump Administration, short-term, limited-duration insurance coverage contracts can now last as long as one day short of a year, and can last as long as three years with renewals or extensions. The Trump Administration explained in its final rule that it selected this standard to promote access to choices of health coverage and to individual health insurance coverage. The rule also acknowledged this kind of insurance may not be the most appropriate or affordable for everyone. As of Tuesday, October 2, insurers can sell these “skimpy” plans for the extended duration.

Read More

Don’t miss today’s Health Law Workshop with Matthew Lawrence

Matthew J. B. Lawrence is Assistant Professor of Law at Penn State Dickinson Law. From 2013 to 2015 he was an Academic Fellow at the Petrie-Flom Center, where his research focused on civil procedure, health law, and administrative law. His scholarship has been published in the New York University Law Review, the University of Cincinnati Law Review, the Fordham Law Review, and the Indiana Law Journal. During his fellowship Matt also designed and taught a class at Harvard Law School entitled “Law and Medicine: The Affordable Care Act,” and spoke widely at conferences and events on health law issues.

Read More

shopping trolley with medicine

Step therapy explained: An increasingly popular tool for cost control

News that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will allow Medicare Advantage programs to enact “step therapy” programs for drugs under Part B as part of an effort to combat rising drug prices has been making rounds in the health policy world recently.

Step therapy is used by all major private insurers and is aimed at curbing expenditures on expensive drugs. It requires that a patient to try a less expensive alternative treatment. Those who fail treatment with the less expensive drug would then be eligible for coverage of the more expensive treatment. Note that it is very similar to prior authorization, a ubiquitous policy tool in which a drug is approved for coverage only after ensuring certain clinical criteria are met.

What was once a relatively rare tool is now commonly used. I examined UnitedHealthcare’s list of step therapy drugs and there are now over 100 listings. This is an order of magnitude increase from the number of drugs listed just four years ago, when I first got interested in this issue.

Drugs listed for step therapy tend to be either new, extremely expensive therapies (e.g., 3rd-line biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, sofosbuvir for hepatitis C) or more expensive formulations of common drugs (e.g., extended release formulation of quetiapine).

Read More

Insurers are making it harder for me to treat my opioid-addicted patients

By Brian Barnett, via the Washington Post

Brian Barnett is an addiction psychiatry fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School. On February 28, 2018, he was participated in the panel discussion Addiction, Neuroscience, and the Criminal Law: Commonwealth vs. Julie Eldred” at Harvard Law School. 

I’m an addiction specialist, and my voice-mail inbox is always nearly full. Some messages are from desperate individuals looking for outpatient treatment or help finding a detoxification program. Others are from patients needing a letter confirming their treatment for a child-custody dispute or care providers informing me that my patients have been hospitalized.

It’s hard to know what to expect, but invariably one type of message awaits: voice mails from pharmacies informing me that a patient’s insurance provider will not approve payment for the medication to treat their opioid addiction unless I obtain prior authorization from the insurer.  Read More

Forced Christian Arbitration Agreements Trivialize Health Care

It is no secret that more and more for-profit companies and non-profit organizations are using binding religious arbitration agreements as a means to bypass legal liability. It has been reported that entities that have little or no religious purpose, such as bamboo floor vendors and vocation cabin rental agencies, have quietly inserted binding arbitration clauses into everyday agreements. In the event of a dispute the consumers or victims cannot take these entities to a secular court, but rather to a religious tribunal that claims to be capable of settling any dispute using their interpretations of the Bible. A common reaction against these questionable practices follows this line of critique: shouldn’t religious arbitration, if tolerated at all, only be used for disputes concerning religious or spiritual matters on which the secular courts cannot adjudicate? What does buying bamboo floors or renting a vocation cabin have anything to do with Christian doctrines?

Unfortunately, these questions cannot adequately challenge the religious reasoning behind Christian arbitration agreements. This is due to the counter-intuitive fact that, according to relevant biblical texts, disputes settled in a so-called Christian arbitration tend not to be about important spiritual matters, but trivial matters instead. Here is the text pertaining to lawsuits among Christian believers:

“When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! 4    (1 Corinthians 6: 1-4)

At first look, these verses seem to make a strong case for Christian arbitrations. However, upon a closer look, it could be argued that Christians can still settle disputes with others in court under certain circumstances. Verse 1 suggests that Christians shouldn’t “dare to go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints,” but it only excludes the court system if we assume that the judges at the civil courts are all “unrighteous sinners”. What if they’re not? What if some judges turn out to be devout Christians in private or possess “righteous” and “saintly” qualities? The remaining verses all point to the scope of judging powers the believers are entitled to, since they are to judge the entire world and even angels. Nonetheless, the structure of these rhetorical questions is meant to convince the believers that because they are qualified to judge angels, trivial earthly matters should be a piece of a cake. Since the disputes between Christians are not at all about angels or the whole world, these lines essentially imply that the matters that fall under the purview of Christian arbitrations are precisely trivial matters pertaining to this life on earth, not complicated spiritual affairs. Read More

FDA Commissioner Rolls Back 40 Years of Orthodoxy on Cost-Exposure

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb

Speaking yesterday at America’s Health Insurance Plans’ (AHIP) National Health Policy Conference, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb railed against patient cost-exposure (e.g., copays).   His prepared speech said:

Patients shouldn’t be penalized by their biology if they need a drug that isn’t on formulary. Patients shouldn’t face exorbitant out of pocket costs, and pay money where the primary purpose is to help subsidize rebates paid to a long list of supply chain intermediaries, or is used to buy down the premium costs for everyone else. After all, what’s the point of a big co-pay on a costly cancer drug? Is a patient really in a position to make an economically-based decision? Is the co-pay going to discourage overutilization? Is someone in this situation voluntary seeking chemo?  Of course not.  Yet the big co-pay or rebate on the costly drug can help offset insurers’ payments to the pharmacy, and reduce average insurance premiums. But sick people aren’t supposed to be subsidizing the healthy.

Wow.  This may seem like common sense to some readers, but it is revolutionary to hear from a senior American government official, and indeed a Republican one no less.

In a new paper, Victor Laurion and I have chronicled the ways in which American politicians at the highest levels have blindly embraced the opposite point of view for half-a-century.  This sort of ideological adherence to simplistic economic reasoning (which James Kwak calls ‘economism‘) is  why U.S. health insurance exposes patients to all sorts of deductibles, copays, and coinsurance.  As a result, even insured Americans find themselves “underinsured” — denied access to care or falling into bankruptcy if they stretch to pay nonetheless. Read More

REGISTER NOW! Will Value-based Care Save the Health Care System?

Will Value-based Care Save the Health Care System?
March 2, 2018 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East ABC (2036)
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Value-based health care is one of the most pressing topics in health care finance and policy today. Value-based payment structures are widely touted as critical to controlling runaway health care costs, but are often difficult for health care entities to incorporate into their existing infrastructures. Because value-based health care initiatives have bipartisan support, it is likely that these programs will continue to play a major role in both the public and private health insurance systems. As such, there is a pressing need to evaluate the implementation of these initiatives thus far and to discuss the direction that American health care financing will take in the coming years.

To explore this important issue, the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics is collaborating with Ropes & Gray LLP to host a one-day conference on value-based health care. This event will bring together scholars, health law practitioners, and health care entities to evaluate the impact of value-based health care on the American health care system.

This event is free and open to the public, but seating is limited and registration is required. Register now!

Sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School with support from the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund and Ropes & Gray LLP.

REGISTER NOW! Will Value-based Care Save the Health Care System?

Will Value-based Care Save the Health Care System?
March 2, 2018 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East ABC (2036)
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Value-based health care is one of the most pressing topics in health care finance and policy today. Value-based payment structures are widely touted as critical to controlling runaway health care costs, but are often difficult for health care entities to incorporate into their existing infrastructures. Because value-based health care initiatives have bipartisan support, it is likely that these programs will continue to play a major role in both the public and private health insurance systems. As such, there is a pressing need to evaluate the implementation of these initiatives thus far and to discuss the direction that American health care financing will take in the coming years.

To explore this important issue, the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics is collaborating with Ropes & Gray LLP to host a one-day conference on value-based health care. This event will bring together scholars, health law practitioners, and health care entities to evaluate the impact of value-based health care on the American health care system.

This event is free and open to the public, but seating is limited and registration is required. Register now!

Sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School with support from the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund and Ropes & Gray LLP.

REGISTER NOW! Will Value-based Care Save the Health Care System?

Will Value-based Care Save the Health Care System?
March 2, 2018 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East ABC (2036)
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Value-based health care is one of the most pressing topics in health care finance and policy today. Value-based payment structures are widely touted as critical to controlling runaway health care costs, but are often difficult for health care entities to incorporate into their existing infrastructures. Because value-based health care initiatives have bipartisan support, it is likely that these programs will continue to play a major role in both the public and private health insurance systems. As such, there is a pressing need to evaluate the implementation of these initiatives thus far and to discuss the direction that American health care financing will take in the coming years.

To explore this important issue, the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics is collaborating with Ropes & Gray LLP to host a one-day conference on value-based health care. This event will bring together scholars, health law practitioners, and health care entities to evaluate the impact of value-based health care on the American health care system.

This event is free and open to the public, but seating is limited and registration is required. Register now!

Sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School with support from the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund and Ropes & Gray LLP.

Learning the lessons from patient safety errors of the past

By John Tingle

A common theme found in patient safety reports in England going back as far as the year 2000 is that the NHS (National Health Service) is poor at learning lessons from previous adverse health incident reports and of changing practice. The seminal report on patient safety in England, Organisation with a memory in 2000  stated:

“There is no single focal point for NHS information on adverse events, and at present it is spread across nearly 1,000 different organisations. The NHS record in implementing the recommendations that emerge from these various systems is patchy. Too often lessons are identified but true ‘active’ learning does not take place because the necessary changes are not properly embedded in practice.” (x-xi).

In late 2003 our NRLS (National Reporting and Learning System) was established.This is our central database of patient safety incident reporting. Can we say today that the NHS is actively learning from the adverse patient safety incidents of the past and changing practice? That the NRLS has been a great success? Or is the jury still out on these questions? Unfortunately the jury is still out. Sadly, there is no shortage of contemporary reports saying that the NHS still needs to improve its lesson learning capacity from adverse events.

Read More