Showing 81 posts in Health Care Reform.
The US Supreme Court's Ruling on the Affordable Care Act will not Change Employers' Responsibilities
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act") in the case of King v Burwell. The issue that the Court addressed was whether tax credits were available to individuals who purchased health insurance coverage through a Health Insurance Exchange ("Exchange") that was established by the Federal government.
An Exchange serves as a marketplace where individuals can compare various health insurance plans and ultimately purchase health insurance coverage. The Act requires an Exchange to be established in each State. If a State fails to establish its own Exchange, the Federal government is required to step in and establish the Exchange for that State. The Court's decision had the potential to preclude tax credits for individuals purchasing insurance through the Federal Exchanges in 34 States, including Michigan.
This issue was of significant importance because of its implications for the Act's Employer Mandate, which generally requires large employers to offer health insurance coverage to their full-time employees. The tax credits provided under the Act serve as the lynchpin for liability under the Employer Mandate. Despite the fact that a large employer may fail to offer health insurance coverage to its full-time employees, it will not be penalized if those employees do not obtain coverage through the Exchange and receive a tax credit. Therefore, large employers located in States that have a Federal Exchange could arguably avoid penalties for their failure to offer coverage to their full-time employees; such employees would not receive a tax credit when purchasing health insurance coverage on the Exchange and would not trigger the penalty. Read More ›
Rural hospitals across the United States struggling to stay open
According to the National Rural Health Association, approximately 50 hospitals in the rural United States have closed since 2010. The number of annual closures is growing. Congressional healthcare budget cuts and policy changes significantly affect rural hospitals because rural hospitals often have a disproportionate number of patients who are covered under Medicare, Medicaid or who are uninsured. A number of factors affect and pose challenges to rural hospitals. One challenge is the difficulty of attracting talent, which often means paying more to healthcare professionals in order to recruit them for employment at a rural hospital. Other challenges facing rural hospitals include:
- changing demographics;
- advances in medical practice that the hospital may be unable to implement;
- new federal regulations and standards that create additional compliance related pressure; and
- lower reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid.
Closures of rural hospitals may force individuals to travel long distances for medical care, which may lead to an increase in mortality rates. The closures may discourage business ventures in rural areas due to the increased costs associated with not having a healthcare facility nearby. Metropolitan hospital closings have increased recently, but the existence of medical care alternatives in metropolitan areas typically reduces the effects that closures have on patients. Read More ›
The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") authorizes the innovative payment model referred to as direct primary care, and more commonly known as “concierge medicine.” Under the direct primary care model, patients can access comprehensive coverage of basic healthcare services for a flat monthly fee. Such services generally include guaranteed same-day or next-day visits with no waiting times. Concierge medicine is becoming increasingly popular in states where it is allowed. Read More ›
On February 18, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) provided further guidance related to the issue of how certain employer health insurance reimbursement arrangements are treated under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).
As we explained in a previous post, after the Health Insurance Marketplace opened for business, many employers recommended that their employees use it to purchase individual health insurance policies, with the promise that the premium costs would be reimbursed by the employer. In fact, such employee reimbursement strategies were aggressively marketed to employers as a solution to reduce costs and comply with the requirements of the ACA. Little did these employers (and marketers) know, such arrangements exposed the employers to significant penalties under the ACA.
Prior guidance made clear that such arrangements – whether funded on a pre- or post-tax basis – may be subject to the ACA’s market reforms. Employers that offer reimbursement arrangements that violate the ACA are subject to a $100 per day per affected employee penalty.
The February issue of the American Health Lawyers Association’s AHLA Connections features a list of the top ten issues that will impact healthcare law in 2015. We summarized the first five topics in a previous blog. (Miss our summary of the first five? Please click here.)
Here are the remaining trends to think about: Read More ›
The February issue of the American Health Lawyers Association’s AHLA Connections features a top-ten list of the issues that will impact healthcare law in 2015. This two-part series discusses these important trends.
Here are the first five: Read More ›
Since the approval of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, hospital consolidation has been on the rise and according to a report detailed in a recent Chicago Tribune article, 2014 followed suit with a “flurry of mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures.” The article features findings from a report issued by healthcare consulting firm Kaufman Hall, including that in 2014 95 deals were announced, down slightly from 98 in 2013 but up from 66 in 2010.
Passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 increased pressure on hospitals to operate more effectively and efficiently, which has driven industry consolidation. The ACA favors a service model that rewards organizations for producing quality outcomes – not quantity – and many providers believe that compliance will be easier with the greater scale and integration enabled by mergers. Through consolidation, many also hope to be better positioned to attract new patients with expanded services and medical specializations.
Additionally, the ACA’s introduction of a massive wave of new patients into the healthcare system, combined with diminishing Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, means that the business of healthcare is becoming increasingly expensive, especially for independent hospitals. Another challenge – and driving force behind consolidation – has been the need to upgrade IT systems and facilities to comply with rules and regulations beyond the ACA. Read More ›
Reduced reimbursements. A shift toward global payment. A demand for integration, quality of care and medical specializations. In order to compete amidst today’s healthcare market pressures, independent hospitals in Michigan and around the nation are increasingly deciding that they cannot go it alone. A recent Detroit News article reveals how this trend is playing out in Metro Detroit, with one of the region’s last two independent hospitals poised for acquisition.
Observers of Detroit’s healthcare environment are reportedly not surprised by the news that Crittenton Hospital Medical Center has signed a letter of intent to join St. Louis-based Ascension Health, the largest Catholic and nonprofit health system in the nation. With Monroe-based Mercy Memorial Hospital announcing on January 6 that it is joining the ProMedica health care company, the Crittenton deal will leave Doctors’ Hospital in Pontiac as the region’s last remaining independent hospital.
Laura Wotruba, spokeswoman for the Michigan Health and Hospital Association, said that this is not a Michigan issue, but rather a widespread pattern. “[It is] a national trend [and] something we’ve been seeing around the country.” Read More ›
Reimbursing Individual Health Insurance Policy Premiums May Result in Significant Penalties for Employers
Employers, including municipal employers, have historically struggled to develop a health insurance benefit program for their employees that provides quality benefits and is cost-effective. After the Health Insurance Marketplace opened for business, many employers recommended that their employees use it to purchase individual health insurance policies, with the promise that the premium costs would be reimbursed by the employer. In fact, such employee reimbursement strategies were aggressively marketed to employers as a solution to reduce costs and comply with the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). Little did these employers (and marketers) know, such arrangements exposed the employers to significant penalties under the ACA.
In September 2013, the IRS issued Notice 2013-54 that made clear that an employer arrangement that paid for employees’ individual health insurance policy premiums on a pre-tax basis violated the ACA. An employer that offered such an arrangement would be subject to a $100 per day per affected employee penalty ($36,500 per year, per employee).
On Nov. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would hear a case concerning the health insurance subsidies provided to millions of Americans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A June 2015 decision is expected in the case of King v. Burwell, which challenges the Internal Revenue Service’s authority to regulate tax-credit subsidies for coverage purchased through health insurance marketplaces established by the federal government (such as the Michigan health insurance marketplace). Nationwide, more than four out of five people who have received coverage through a federal marketplace are getting a tax credit. Read More ›
- Digital Assets
- Accountable Care Organizations
- Did you Know?
- Health Insurance Exchange
- Labor Relations
- Fraud & Abuse
- Affordable Care Act
- News & Events
- Health Care Reform
- HITECH Act
- Long Term Care
- Employee Benefits
- Electronic Health Records
- 6th Circuit Court of Appeals