Cameron sues state health cabinet, saying it's failed to implement parts of new anti-abortion law; cabinet calls it a political stunt

By Melissa Patrick

Kentucky Health News

Attorney General Daniel Cameron has filed suit against Gov. Andy Beshear's administration, saying it is failing to implement parts of the state's latest anti-abortion law, which a federal judge has blocked at least temporarily.

Cameron said in a news release that the law requires the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to take numerous steps to implement it, including creating and distributing various reporting forms within 60 days of the bill’s effective date, which was April 13; to issue regulations governing distribution and dispensing of abortion-inducing drugs; and to aid in the interment of fetal remains.

Atty. Gen. Daniel Cameron

“Gov. Beshear has a duty to faithfully execute the law, but he has failed to implement important provisions of House Bill 3. . . Failure to act is not an option," Cameron said in the release.

The release adds that the "federal court has explicitly stated that even though parts of the law are temporarily halted while the litigation proceeds, that does not relieve the cabinet of its obligation to act to fulfill its statutory responsibilities." 

The cabinet said it has not refused to comply with any requirements that are not blocked in court. 

"This lawsuit is a baseless and blatant political stunt," cabinet spokeswoman Susan Dunlap said in an e-mail. "The cabinet has not refused to comply with any requirements and has told the attorney general that it will work through the federal court that has jurisdiction over this matter and which has issued an injunction in this case. In response, the attorney general sent threatening letters to the cabinet asking us to ignore the court’s orders and today defied the federal court by trying to go around it."

Cameron is running for the Republican nomination to oppose Beshear, a Democrat, in the fall 2023 election. The named defendant in the lawsuit is Health Cabinet Secretary Eric Friedlander, in his capacity as secretary. View Cameron's lawsuit here and his motion for a temporary injunction here.

The law, which was passed over Beshear's veto, bans mailing of medications that have become the means for most abortions in Kentucky, strengthens parental-consent rules, increases reporting requirements, requires aborted fetuses to be cremated or buried, and bans abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy, mirroring a Mississippi law that is awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

All that said, if Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that has guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion until a fetus can live outside the womb, roughly 23 to 24 weeks, all of this becomes a moot point. A leaked draft opinion from the court indicates that is likely, and Kentucky has a "trigger law" that will immediately make all abortions in Kentucky illegal, with some medical exceptions.

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsides in all states; ruling has no direct effect on Kentucky, but focuses political debate

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the tax subsidies provided under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are legal in every state.

While the ruling has no effect on Kentucky, and would have had no direct effect if it had gone the other way, it sets the table for continued political debate about health policy in Congress and in Kentucky's race for governor.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion. "If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."

The law says the federal government can pay subsidies to help people afford insurance bought through “an Exchange established by the State.” The lawsuit argued that Americans in the 34 states using the federal exchanges were not eligible for the subsidies, which are crucial to the law's success, helping to make health insurance more affordable, reducing the number of uninsured Americans. Proponents of the law say not providing subsidies to individuals in those 34 states relying on the federal exchange would have upended the law, notes CNN.

President Obama called on critics to accept the law as permanent, saying after the ruling, "The Affordable Care Act is here to stay."

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called Obamacare “a rolling disaster for the American people,” with a “multitude of broken promises, including the one that resulted in millions of Americans losing the coverage they had and wanted to keep. Today’s ruling won’t change the skyrocketing costs in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays that have hit the middle class so hard over the last few years.”

Maps: Percentage uninsured in 2012, above, and 2014, below

Obama countered, "The setbacks I remember clearly. But as the dust has settled, there can be no doubt that this law is working. It has changed, and in some cases saved, American lives. It set this country on a smarter, stronger course." He added, "The law has helped hold the price of health care to its slowest growth in 50 years" and "Nearly one in three Americans who was uninsured a few years ago is insured today. The uninsured rate in America is the lowest since we began to keep records."

A White House fact sheet noted that the law also expanded "access to preventive care, including immunizations, well-child visits, certain cancer screenings, and contraceptive services, with no additional out-of-pocket costs as well as no more annual caps on essential benefit coverage and new annual limits on out-of-pocket costs."

Since Kentucky established its own exchange, Kynect, for buying subsidized health insurance or signing up for Medicaid, the ruling may seem moot for Kentuckians. However, it establishes some of the facts for a health-care policy debate in the governor's race between Republican Matt Bevin and Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway.

The exchanges and the expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program are choices for the states, and Bevin has said that if elected he would shut down Kynect and end the Medicaid expansion, which has covered about 430,000 Kentuckians. The federal government is paying their entire cost through next year; in 2017 the state would start picking up a small share, rising to the law's limit of 10 percent in 2020.

Conway has acknowledged questions about whether the state can afford to pay its share, but to “say you’re going to kick a half a million people off of health insurance based on what we may or may not be able to afford in 2021 is irresponsible.” A Conway spokesman said he "appreciates the court's careful consideration of this case and agrees with today's decision," reports the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The Herald-Leader's Mary Meehan interviewed officials and experts for a package of questions and answers about the law and Kentucky. It is published at http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/25/3917832_in-light-of-the-supreme-court.html.

Outgoing Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat who expanded Medicaid, said in a statement that the decision “reaffirms that, from the very start, we did the right thing for the more than 500,000 Kentuckians who have qualified for health-care coverage through Kynect since January 1, 2014.”

Susan Zepeda, president and CEO of the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, said in a release, "While many have been awaiting this important decision, we must remember that much remains to be done to assure that all Kentuckians – and all Americans – have timely access to safe, effective and affordable quality care." Zepeda said Kentuckians continue to work on ways to improve and protect Kentuckians' health, such as reforming the way we pay for care and making health care cost and pricing more transparent.

"As people who have forgone care too long because of its expense now gain access to care, it will place a larger short-term burden on the health-care system, which approaches like these can help to address," said Zepeda. "The Affordable Care Act permits – and incentivizes – local health care innovation. We can and must shape Kentucky solutions to Kentucky’s health challenges."

CBO estimates court ruling will mean 3 million fewer people than predicted will get insurance, saving federal government $84 billion

The Congressional Budget Office estimates 3 million fewer people will get health insurance than expected before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The CBO forecasts that will reduce the law's estimated cost by $84 billion over the next 10 years.

Fewer people will have coverage because some states will opt not to expand their Medicaid programs up to 138 percent the federal poverty level — an option states now have because of the decision. This runs counter to a report by the conservative American Action Forum that predicted states declining to expand Medicaid would increase the law's cost.

Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post breaks down the nonpartisan congressional agency's calculation: "The CBO estimates that for every person who does not enroll in Medicaid, and because of that goes uninsured, the federal government saves $6,000 in spending by 2022. For the average person who does not enroll in Medicaid, but instead gets subsidized coverage from the health-insurance exchange, the federal government spends $9,000 — $3,000 more than they would have had those individuals been on Medicaid."

Thus, the CBO says it will be more expensive for taxpayers if more people are on Medicaid instead of getting their insurance from the exchanges. With about 6 million fewer people than expected on Medicaid, and only about 3 million signing up for insurance exchanges, leaving 3 million more uninsured than expected, "The projected decrease in total federal spending on Medicaid is larger than the anticipated increase in total exchange subsidies," the CBO notes. Here is its graphic representation:

Experts disagree on whether states will choose to expand Medicaid

Experts disagree on whether states will choose to expand Medicaid, a crucial, but voluntary, part of the federal health-care reform law. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled the federal government could not force states to expand the system for the poor and disabled, but that the expansion itself is constitutional.

Yesterday, both Gov. Steve Beshear and Senate President David Williams both indicated they are researching how Kentucky should proceed.

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said "many states, maybe most, will decide that they simply cannot afford to choose to expand Medicaid." Though the federal government will pay for the newly eligible enrollees for several years after the law takes effect in 2014, states will eventually have to pay 10 percent of the cost.

Despite the expected cost, Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University, predicts that "only a small number of states" will pass up the opportunity to expand, given the federal government's generous offer, reports Robert Pear for The New York Times.

The Medicaid expansion is central to the health care law, since about 17 million of the 30 million Americans who will newly qualify for health insurance will do so under Medicaid. In Kentucky, that translates to 280,000 more people enrolling in the program.

Senior administration officials said they feel sure states will choose to expand Medicaid, but Republican governors like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Bob McDonnell in Virginia would not commit either way. Daniels said the expansion would cost Indiana $2 billion in the next 10 years.

And though U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is one of the authors of the new law, he was not sure his own state would opt to expand. He did call the offer of federal assistance "a big juicy carrot." (Read more)

Useful list helps explain health care law and Supreme Court ruling

To learn more about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the federal health-care reform law, as well as the Affordable Care Act itself, the Detroit Free Press has put together a list of helpful websites that elucidate the issues.

The list would be helpful to reporters interested in localizing the impact of the law.

Click here for the list, compiled by reporter Pat Anstett.

Expert: Health care landscape already changed, despite what Supreme Court decision is this week

Whether or not the federal health-care reform law is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, initiatives are already in place that will change the way health care is delivered, an expert said at a Lexington conference Tuesday. Gregg Nunziata, senior director at research and consulting firm The Advisory Board in Washington, D.C., "said the burgeoning number of baby boomers entering retirement, the ever-accelerating advances in technology and the increasing public health crisis that finds more and more Americans with chronic illness such as diabetes, are fundamentally changing how health care works in America," reports Mary Meehan for the Lexington Herald-Leader. As people age, they are "demanding a different kind of care, and they will be living long into their golden years," he said. When they become seniors, who already tend to cast their vote, they will become a powerful voting bloc.

Health officials are looking at ways to cut down on costs, which is necessary because "the government is the major funding source, and the major funding source is broke," Nunziata said. To cut costs, the government and insurers are looking at new ways to pay for health care. One example is the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare scoring hospitals based on their performance and paying them accordingly. "A low score could reduce payments by only 1 percent or 2 percent," Meehan reports, but that can translate to a multi-million dollar loss. "Every hospital is being judged and Washington is keeping score," he said.
Bundling payments is another method being tried, in which one flat fee covers all of the care that is provided in a procedure. "The idea would be to force more efficient and cost-effective care by encouraging cooperation," Meehan reports. (Read more)

A summary of what to expect when the Supreme Court hears arguments about the health-care reform law

How big a deal will it be when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments about the constitutionality of the new federal health-care reform law later this month? Big, concludes Stuart Taylor Jr. for Kaiser Health News.

"It's big enough for the justices to schedule six hours of arguments — more time than given to any case since 1966," he reports. "It's also big enough to attract more briefs than any other case in history ... and, finally, it's big enough to cause the justices to postpone until October half of the 12 cases that they were ordinarily going to hear in April in order to clear time to get started on the health care opinions."

The most pressing issues deal with the individual mandate of the law, which requires people without insurance to buy some or pay fines. The question is whether the mandate "represents an unconstitutional exercise on Congress' power to regulate commerce and to levy taxes," Taylor notes. There is also the question of state sovereignty, since the law requires states "to spend more of their own money or forfeit all of the federal Medicaid money they now receive," Taylor reports.

As for the outcome, that's the million-dollar question, Taylor writes. "It's clear that the court's four more liberal members, like almost all other liberal legal experts, will find the law constitutional in all respects. It's also clear that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas will vote to strike down much or all of the law. It's less clear what swing-voting Justice Anthony Kennedy and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito will do."

As for the major arguments regarding Medicaid and for and against the individual mandate, Taylor provides an excellent summary that is worth reading in its entirety. (Read more)