What Will Trump’s White House Return Mean for Healthcare?

By Stephanie Armour, KFF Health News

Former President Donald Trump’s election victory and looming return to the White House will likely bring changes that scale back the nation’s public health insurance programs — increasing the uninsured rate, while imposing new barriers to abortion and other reproductive care.

The reverberations will be felt far beyond Washington, DC, and could include an erosion of the Affordable Care Act’s consumer protections, the imposition of work requirements in Medicaid and funding cuts to the safety net insurance, and challenges to federal agencies that safeguard public health. Abortion restrictions may tighten nationwide with a possible effort to restrict the mailing of abortion medications.

And with the elevation of vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Trump’s inner circle of advisers, public health interventions with rigorous scientific backing — whether fluoridating public water supplies or inoculating children — could come under fire.

Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris with 277 Electoral College votes, The Associated Press declared at 5:34 a.m. ET on Wednesday. He won 51% of the vote nationally to Harris’ 47.5%, the AP projected.

Trump’s victory will give a far broader platform to skeptics and critics of federal health programs and actions. Worst case, public health authorities worry, the U.S. could see increases in preventable illnesses; a weakening of public confidence in established science; and debunked notions — such as a link between vaccines and autism — adopted as policy.

Trump said in an NBC News interview on Nov. 3 that he would “make a decision” about banning some vaccines, saying he would consult with Kennedy and calling him “a very talented guy.”

‘Concepts of a Plan’

While Trump has said he will not try again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, his administration will face an immediate decision next year on whether to back an extension of enhanced premium subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans. Without the enhanced subsidies, steep premium increases causing lower enrollment are projected. The current uninsured rate, about 8%, would almost certainly rise.

Policy specifics have not moved far beyond the “concepts of a plan” Trump said he had during his debate with Harris, though Vice President-elect JD Vance later said the administration would seek to inject more competition into ACA marketplaces.

Republicans were projected to claim a Senate majority, in addition to the White House, while control of the House was not yet resolved early Wednesday.

Polls show the ACA has gained support among the public, including provisions such as preexisting condition protections and allowing young people to stay on family health plans until they are 26.

Trump supporters and others who have worked in his administration say the former president wants to improve the law in ways that will lower costs. They say he has already shown he will be forceful when it comes to lowering high health care prices, pointing to efforts during his presidency to pioneer price transparency in medical costs.

“On affordability, I’d see him building on the first term,” said Brian Blase, who served as a Trump health adviser from 2017 to 2019. Relative to a Democratic administration, he said, there will be “much more focus” on “minimizing fraud and waste.”

Efforts to weaken the ACA could include slashing funds for enrollment outreach, enabling consumers to purchase more health plans that don’t comply with ACA consumer protections, and allowing insurers to charge sicker people higher premiums.

Democrats say they expect the worst.

“We know what their agenda is,” said Leslie Dach, executive chair of Protect Our Care, a health care policy and advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. He worked in the Obama administration helping to implement the ACA. “They’re going to raise costs for millions of Americans and rip coverage away from millions and, meanwhile, they will give tax breaks to rich people.”

Theo Merkel, director of the Private Health Reform Initiative at the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute, which Blase leads, said the enhanced ACA subsidies extended by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 do nothing to improve plans or lower premiums. He said they paper over the plans’ low value with larger government subsidies.

Other Trump supporters say the president-elect may support preserving Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug prices, another provision of the IRA. Trump has championed reducing drug prices, and in 2020 advanced a test model that would have tied the prices of some drugs in Medicare to lower costs overseas, said Merkel, who worked in Trump’s first White House. The drug industry successfully sued to block the program.

Within Trump’s circles, some names have already been floated as possible leaders for the Department of Health and Human Services. They include former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Seema Verma, who ran the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Trump administration.

Kennedy, who suspended his independent presidential run and endorsed Trump, has told his supporters that Trump promised him control of HHS. Trump said publicly before Election Day that he would give Kennedy a big role in his administration, but he may have difficulty winning Senate confirmation for a Cabinet position.

While Trump has vowed to protect Medicare and said he supports funding home care benefits, he’s been less specific about his intentions for Medicaid, which provides coverage to lower-income and disabled people. Some health analysts expect the program will be especially vulnerable to spending cuts, which could help finance the extension of tax breaks that expire at the end of next year.

Possible changes include the imposition of work requirements on beneficiaries in some states. The administration and Republicans in Congress could also try to revamp the way Medicaid is funded. Now, the federal government pays states a variable percentage of program costs. Conservatives have long sought to cap the federal allotments to states, which critics say would lead to draconian cuts.

“Medicaid will be a big target in a Trump administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Less clear is the potential future of reproductive health rights.

Trump has said decisions about abortion restrictions should be left to the states. Thirteen states ban abortion with few exceptions, while 28 others restrict the procedure based on gestational duration, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on advancing reproductive rights. Trump said before the election that he would not sign a national abortion ban.

State ballot measures to protect abortion rights were adopted in four states, including Missouri, which Trump won by about 18 points, according to preliminary AP reports. Abortion rights measures were rejected by voters in Florida and South Dakota.

Trump could move to restrict access to abortion medications, used in more than half of abortions, either by withdrawing the FDA’s authorization for the drugs or by enforcing a 19th-century law, the Comstock Act, that abortion opponents say bans their shipment. Trump has said he generally would not use the law to ban mail delivery of the drugs.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Denials of Health Insurance Claims Are Rising

By Elisabeth Rosenthal, KFF Health News

Millions of Americans in the past few years have run into this experience: filing a health care insurance claim that once might have been paid immediately but instead is just as quickly denied.

If the experience and the insurer’s explanation often seem arbitrary and absurd, that might be because companies appear increasingly likely to employ computer algorithms or people with little relevant experience to issue rapid-fire denials of claims — sometimes bundles at a time — without reviewing the patient’s medical chart. A job title at one company was “denial nurse.”

It’s a handy way for insurers to keep revenue high — and just the sort of thing that provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were meant to prevent. Because the law prohibited insurers from deploying previously profit-protecting measures such as refusing to cover patients with preexisting conditions, the authors worried that insurers would compensate by increasing the number of denials.

And so, the law tasked the Department of Health and Human Services with monitoring denials both by health plans on the Obamacare marketplace and those offered through employers and insurers. It hasn’t fulfilled that assignment. Thus, denials have become another predictable, miserable part of the patient experience, with countless Americans unjustly being forced to pay out-of-pocket or, faced with that prospect, forgoing needed medical help.

A recent KFF study of ACA plans found that even when patients received care from in-network physicians — doctors and hospitals approved by these same insurers — the companies in 2021 nonetheless denied, on average, 17% of claims. One insurer denied 49% of claims in 2021; another’s turndowns hit an astonishing 80% in 2020. Despite the potentially dire impact that denials have on patients’ health or finances, data shows that people appeal only once in every 500 cases.

Sometimes, the insurers’ denials defy not just medical standards of care but also plain old human logic. Here is a sampling collected for the KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” joint project.

• Dean Peterson of Los Angeles said he was “shocked” when payment was denied for a heart procedure to treat an arrhythmia, which had caused him to faint with a heart rate of 300 beats per minute. After all, he had the insurer’s preapproval for the expensive ($143,206) intervention. More confusing still, the denial letter said the claim had been rejected because he had “asked for coverage for injections into nerves in your spine” (he hadn’t) that were “not medically needed.” Months later, after dozens of calls and a patient advocate’s assistance, the situation is still not resolved.

• An insurer’s letter was sent directly to a newborn child denying coverage for his fourth day in a neonatal intensive care unit. “You are drinking from a bottle,” the denial notification said, and “you are breathing on your own.” If only the baby could read.

• Deirdre O’Reilly’s college-age son, suffering a life-threatening anaphylactic allergic reaction, was saved by epinephrine shots and steroids administered intravenously in a hospital emergency room. His mother, utterly relieved by that news, was less pleased to be informed by the family’s insurer that the treatment was “not medically necessary.”

As it happens, O’Reilly is an intensive-care physician at the University of Vermont. “The worst part was not the money we owed,” she said of the $4,792 bill. “The worst part was that the denial letters made no sense — mostly pages of gobbledygook.” She has filed two appeals, so far without success.

Some denials are, of course, well considered, and some insurers deny only 2% of claims, the KFF study found. But the increase in denials, and the often strange rationales offered, might be explained, in part, by a ProPublica investigation of Cigna — an insurance giant, with 170 million customers worldwide.

ProPublica’s investigation, published in March, found that an automated system, called PXDX, allowed Cigna medical reviewers to sign off on 50 charts in 10 seconds, presumably without examining the patients’ records.

Decades ago, insurers’ reviews were reserved for a tiny fraction of expensive treatments to make sure providers were not ordering with an eye on profit instead of patient needs.

These reviews — and the denials — have now trickled down to the most mundane medical interventions and needs, including things such as asthma inhalers or the heart medicine that a patient has been on for months or years. What’s approved or denied can be based on an insurer’s shifting contracts with drug and device manufacturers rather than optimal patient treatment.

Automation makes reviews cheap and easy. A 2020 study estimated that the automated processing of claims saves U.S. insurers more than $11 billion annually.

But challenging a denial can take hours of patients’ and doctors’ time. Many people don’t have the knowledge or stamina to take on the task, unless the bill is especially large or the treatment obviously lifesaving. And the process for larger claims is often fabulously complicated.

The Affordable Care Act clearly stated that HHS “shall” collect the data on denials from private health insurers and group health plans and is supposed to make that information publicly available. (Who would choose a plan that denied half of patients’ claims?) The data is also supposed to be available to state insurance commissioners, who share with HHS the duties of oversight and trying to curb abuse.

To date, such information-gathering has been haphazard and limited to a small subset of plans, and the data isn’t audited to ensure it is complete, according to Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF and one of the authors of the KFF study. Federal oversight and enforcement based on the data are, therefore, more or less nonexistent.

HHS did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The government has the power and duty to end the fire hose of reckless denials harming patients financially and medically. Thirteen years after the passage of the ACA, perhaps it is time for the mandated investigation and enforcement to begin.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Healthcare Is a Human Right That We Deserve

By Jennifer Kain Kilgore, PNN columnist

I shouldn’t have to write this. But here I am because of headlines like these:

“FTC Refunds Almost $3.9 Million to Purchasers of Deceptively Advertised Quell Wearable Pain-Relief Device”

My body went numb after reading that. The Quell, which I wore for four years, that I blogged about, that I recommended to friends and family? That Quell?

The Federal Trade Commission slapped parent company NeuroMetrix for deceptive advertising. Specifically, the company was cited for claiming the Quell works throughout the whole body and not just where it’s worn.

“NeuroMetrix settled the case – without admitting or denying the allegations – for $4 million. The company also agreed to stop claiming that Quell provides relief for chronic or severe pain beyond the knee area where the device is worn,” PNN reported.

Soon enough I was receiving texts -- “Is this true?” “Does it not work?”

It worked for me, but that’s not why I’m writing this. My testimonial is still and will remain on NeuroMetrix’s website. The company didn’t ask me to come to their defense. Despite the bad press, that gadget worked for me.

NEUROMETRIX IMAGE

Getting a $50 refund from NeuroMetrix in my PayPal account, though? The company’s silence and tacit admission made a helpless rage boil inside where anger has been simmering for weeks and months and years.

It made me as angry as when desperate pain patients called my law office, asking if I would draft legislation or talk sense to their doctors. Or when a genuinely good product came on the market but took advantage of customers. Or when the Sackler family didn’t go to prison after their pharmaceuticals created the conditions for the national opioid epidemic to truly explode. That bubbling anger began to rise.

Where should I direct this rage? At the callers? At the makers of the SpineGym, who took their crowdsourced money and failed to deliver on their promises? At the Sacklers? No, of course not. It’s not about them. My anger is bigger than that.

I shouldn’t have to write a reaction piece about the FTC’s decision. I shouldn’t have to draft laws to change a healthcare system in which pain patients are discounted, dismissed, and even overlooked.  Sometimes our limitations and physical pain prevent us from seeking the help we need.  

I shouldn’t have had to write for Pain News Network in the first place, though I’m thankful for the opportunity to do so. I became a columnist in order to try all the gadgets claiming to cure back and neck pain. If my doctors wouldn’t help me, I would help myself.

And there it is.

A record-breaking number of citizens have already voted. Despite their overwhelming voices, a Supreme Court justice was just appointed whose legal interpretation could dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which is on the Supreme Court Docket on November 10, just seven days after the most important election in history.

If you’re reading this, health insurance is crucially important to you or someone you love. Right now, our president’s legal team is in court attempting to kill the ACA without any kind of replacement during a global pandemic that has killed over 231,000 Americans.

But that’s not why I’m writing this.

I used to blog about my journey through the healthcare system. By the time I’d graduated from the Quell to an implanted spinal cord stimulator (which also works), I’d exhausted myself. It was time to focus on finally, finally healing. You know, being a normal person again.

The spinal cord stimulator -- controversial for sure, and not a surefire bet -- ended up working beyond my wildest dreams. Even though I’ve pulled on wires and scar tissue, my life has been partially restored. My doctor said the Quell was a good indicator as to whether a SCS would even work. If the Quell helped, so would a spinal cord stimulator.  

Before the SCS, I wasn’t able to consistently work as an attorney; I could barely leave my house. I was dependent on my husband for everything from insurance to carrying bags of groceries.

After the SCS, I can do yoga and pilates. I can lift laundry baskets. I can go to work and sit through a two-hour deposition. I can be an actual person again.

But that’s not why I’m writing this.

I shouldn’t have spent sixteen years of my life begging for help. I shouldn’t have to become a patient advocate and a writer for an online publication because I couldn’t otherwise afford pain-relief devices.

I shouldn’t have to write this.

I shouldn’t have to fight my insurance company to get my treatments covered. I shouldn’t have to stagger bill payments to various hospitals so as not to overdraft my account. I shouldn’t be paying for my spinal cord stimulator more than a year after its implantation.

I shouldn’t -- we shouldn’t -- have to do these things. We shouldn’t have to fight so hard to live in what’s supposedly the greatest country on earth.  What’s so great about living in fear? Fear of the unknown, the future, access to healthcare resources, and effective treatments? I’ve lived in fear for long enough, and so have you.

I shouldn’t be here. You shouldn’t be here, reading this. This website shouldn’t exist, and we shouldn’t have to fight so hard. But one in five Americans adults has chronic pain, and something must be done.

Healthcare is a human right, and we deserve it.  So VOTE.  Protect your loved ones by protecting healthcare.

Jennifer Kain Kilgore is an associate attorney at MALIS|LAW, working in civil litigation. She has chronic back and neck pain after two car accidents. 

Pre-Existing Conditions Deserve Affordable Treatment

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

The National Institutes of Health reports that about 10 percent of Americans experience a substance use disorder (SUD) at some point in their lives. Most of those who suffer from an SUD receive no treatment.

About twice as many Americans – 20 percent -- have chronic pain. Many of them also cannot find adequate treatment or even a provider willing to treat them. 

Making treatment accessible for both of these conditions -- which are defined as pre-existing for insurance purposes -- is always a topic of concern. These days, it is of paramount concern that access to treatment is available. And it requires us to take action.

We’re All at Risk for Pain and Drug Abuse

Poverty and hopelessness are risk factors for drug abuse, even though not everyone who is economically challenged develops an SUD. Unfortunately, prevention and treatment programs for SUDs are less available to those who cannot pay for them and who most need them.

Anyone can suffer from chronic pain, but even those with resources may not have access to adequate pain management.

My concern is more than theoretical. It is personal. I have friends, former patients and family members who suffer from SUDs. If the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — widely known as Obamacare — ends and we lose coverage of pre-existing conditions, I fear they will be abandoned in exactly the same way as people in pain have been abandoned ever since the CDC issued its 2016 opioid prescribing guideline.

In recent years, I have received hundreds of emails and calls from people in pain. Their medications have been tapered and they don't know where to turn for help. Untreated chronic pain, as well as untreated SUDs, can result in ruinous consequences: disability, destitution, isolation, poverty and suicide.

We need to help healthcare providers find more effective ways to treat their patients. The Centers of Excellence in Pain Education (CoEPEs) program was created to teach healthcare professionals about pain and its treatment. Since this is something most doctors do not study adequately during medical school, it's important to have continuing medical education opportunities to learn about the stigma associated with pain treatment and substance abuse disorders.

Abolishing ACA Could Have Devastating Consequences

The current administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to abolish the ACA. President Trump has said that Obamacare "must fall." Given the fact that we're in the middle of a pandemic and millions of people are unemployed and may have lost access to employer-sponsored healthcare, the timing seems terrible.  

But even without a pandemic, reversing the ACA would be devastating for millions of Americans who have an SUD or chronic pain. President Trump signed an executive order on September 24 that claims to protect people with pre-existing conditions. However, experts dispute whether his executive order can actually do what it promises.

Regardless, eliminating the ACA will likely allow insurance companies to charge higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions. This would essentially render treatment for chronic pain and SUD unaffordable for many people, leading to an increase of the terrible consequences mentioned above. And, of course, SUDs and chronic pain are only two of the pre-existing conditions that would no longer be protected. 

It is time for everyone to understand the consequences that losing the ACA may have for their community, family, friends and themselves. There is still time to be heard, but you have to act quickly. Click here to find your federal, state, and local elected officials and express your views.  

Let us also send healing thoughts and prayers to President Trump, the First Lady and everyone else infected with COVID-19.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is author of the award-winning book The Painful Truth, and co-producer of the documentary It Hurts Until You Die. Opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or policy of PRA Health Sciences. You can find Lynn on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD. 

Obamacare Prevented Thousands of Opioid Overdose Deaths

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act – widely known as Obamacare -- was associated with a six percent lower rate of opioid overdose deaths, according to a new study that estimates thousands of overdoses may have been prevented by expanding access to healthcare for millions of Americans.

Researchers also found a significant and unexpected increase in overdoses involving methadone, an addiction treatment drug sometimes used to treat chronic pain.

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia opted to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), providing healthcare coverage to uninsured low-income adults. ACA requires that individuals who receive coverage be provided with mental health and substance use disorder treatment.

Researchers at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine and University of California, Davis looked at death certificate data from 49 states and the District of Columbia between 2001 and 2017— looking for changes in overdose rates in counties that expanded Medicaid under ACA compared to those that did not.

Their findings, published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that Medicaid expansion prevented between 1,678 and 8,132 opioid overdose deaths from 2015 to 2017.

Overall, there was a 6% lower rate of opioid overdose deaths, an 11% lower rate of heroin overdoses, and a 10% lower rate of death involving fentanyl and synthetic opioids other than methadone in states that adopted the ACA.

"The findings of this study suggest that providing expanded access to health care may be a key policy lever to address the opioid overdose crisis," said senior author Magdalena Cerdá, DrPH, director of the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy in the Department of Population Health at NYU Langone Health.

Methadone Overdoses Rose

Cerdá and her colleagues also found a concerning 11% increase in methadone overdose rates in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Methadone is an opioid that has long been used to treat addiction, but it is also prescribed by some doctors to treat chronic pain.

“Although the rate of methadone-related mortality is relatively low compared with other opioid classes, our finding that Medicaid expansion was associated with increased methadone overdose deaths deserves further investigation,” researchers said.

“Past research has found high rates of methadone use to treat pain among Medicaid beneficiaries and that the drug is disproportionately associated with overdose deaths among individuals in this population, underscoring the importance of ongoing local, state, and federal actions to address safety concerns associated with methadone for pain in tandem with Medicaid expansion.”

In 2014, the methadone prescribing rate among Medicaid patients was nearly twice that of commercially insured patients. Medicaid patients were also slightly more likely to be prescribed methadone for pain (1.1% vs. 0.85%) as opposed to addiction.

Expansion Reduced Opioid Deaths

The ACA became law at a time when opioid overdose deaths were rising sharply. Some critics of Obamacare claimed that expanding access to low-cost opioid pain relievers would create an incentive for low-income Medicaid beneficiaries to sell their drugs.

“It stands to reason that expanding the program — particularly to people most susceptible to abuse — could worsen the problem,” a 2018 report by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) claimed. “The epidemic has indeed spiraled into a national crisis since the Obamacare Medicaid expansion took effect in 2014. Drug overdose deaths have risen rapidly, at a much faster pace than before expansion.”

The NYU and UC Davis study found that theory to be false.

"Past research has found Medicaid expansion is associated with not only large decreases in the number of uninsured Americans, but also considerable increases in access to opioid use disorder treatment and the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone," said lead author Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at UC Davis.

"Ours was the first study to investigate the natural follow-up question: Is the expansion associated with reductions in local opioid overdose deaths? On balance, the answer appears to be yes." 

Medicaid Expansion Did Not Fuel Opioid Crisis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new study is debunking claims that increased access to healthcare and pain management helped to fuel the opioid crisis. If anything, the opposite appears to be the case.

The study, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that early Medicaid expansions in Arizona, Maine and New York may have led to lower overdose rates in those states.

"These findings suggest that Medicaid expansions were unlikely to have contributed to the subsequent rise in drug overdose deaths, and may even have been protective," said lead author Atheendar Venkataramani, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Venkataramani and co-author Paula Chatterjee, MD, looked at state-level data on drug overdoses from 1999 to 2008, comparing overdose mortality rates in the three Medicaid-expansion states to those in other states.

By 2008, Arizona, Maine and New York had about 7 fewer overdose deaths per 100,000 people compared to the other 47 states.

The differences were even greater when the three states were only compared to adjacent states: They had 17 fewer deaths per 100,000 people.

Overall, the study suggests that drug overdose deaths were nearly 20 percent lower in the early expansion states.

"The results should provide reassurance to policymakers who are concerned that state Medicaid expansions, including the recent expansions implemented as part of the Affordable Care Act, promote rises in drug overdose mortality," said Venkataramani.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) – widely known as Obamacare – greatly expanded Medicaid coverage for millions of poor Americans, starting in 2014. But some critics have claimed the ACA made the opioid crisis worse by giving patients easier access to opioids.

“The Medicaid expansion may be fueling the opioid epidemic in communities across the country,” Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R) wrote in a 2017 letter to the Health and Human Services inspector general. “Because opioids are so available and inexpensive through Medicaid, it appears that the program has created a perverse incentive for people to use opioids, sell them for large profits and stay hooked.”

The Penn Medicine study wasn't designed to determine why Medicaid expansion appeared to lower overdose death rates in New York, Arizona and Maine. But it does suggest that better access to healthcare was a factor.

“Improving people’s access to health care could have a number of effects. It may be that people had better access to substance use disorder treatment or better access to mental health or pain management. Or it may be that providing health insurance reduced the risk of financial ruin, which helped downward socioeconomic spirals that could lead to substance use disorder,” Venkataramani wrote in an email to PNN.

“If Medicaid expansions did increase access to opioids, then the effect of doing so was far outweighed by other forces that actually reduced mortality rates from drug use order. The mechanisms again are not known because of data limitations in this study, but access to regular health care, access to substance use disorder treatment, and improved socioeconomic circumstances all may have contributed to the slower growth in drug overdose mortality in Medicaid expansion states.”

The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid coverage to about 12 million Americans in the 31 states and the District of Columbia that opted to receive it. A recent study found that opioid prescriptions decreased slightly in those states, while prescriptions for addiction treatment drugs like Suboxone rose significantly.

Can Trump Make Healthcare Great Again?

By Barby Ingle, Columnist

As a chronic pain patient, I know that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has not been so affordable for some people. Here in Arizona, monthly insurance premiums are going up 75 percent and the national average is seeing a double digit increase.

Running a foundation for the past decade, I have heard many stories of patients unable to afford proper and timely healthcare. Since the enactment of Obamacare in 2010, I've heard even more stories of regret, loss of care and rising costs. Premiums have gone up so much that many would rather pay the penalty for not having insurance, instead of getting it.

I am not sure if President-elect Donald Trump can "repeal and replace" the ACA in a timely manner. It will take an act of Congress to completely repeal ACA and eliminate the individual mandate.

We need to broaden healthcare access for all Americans, especially those of us living with chronic illnesses. Let’s look at the 7 steps proposed by Trump during the presidential campaign.

1. Completely repeal Obamacare and eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.

I agree with not mandating the purchase of insurance, but I also see why it was put into the plan. It was thought if we force everyone to pay into the system, it will be easier to bear the costs of caring for the elderly and disabled. 

Current enrollment for Obamacare shows that less than 12.7 million of the 40 million without insurance are now covered. That's progress, but even with subsidies, many people in pain (not on disability) are unable to afford coverage. Also, many with insurance were cut from their long-time providers as their plans were no longer accepted by the provider.

2. Modify existing law that prohibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in the market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.

This is one provision I would like to see. I travel currently for my pain management care. I would like to see the sale of health insurance across state lines, as I believe it will offer me better in-plan coverage. Paying out of network is very costly for patients like myself.

As we allow the free market to play a bigger role, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it. I don’t believe that basic Medicaid covers enough treatments for chronic pain patients.

I would also want multiple patient representatives and caregivers to play a role on boards and advisory committees that make these decisions. There is no plan in place for the involvement of the patient voice that I am aware of.

3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments on their tax returns.

I would like the ability to fully deduct my health insurance premiums. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions, so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions?

4.  Allow more individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions to HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate from year to year. These accounts could become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs. HSA funds could then be used by any member of a family without penalty. 

As someone who has participated in an HSA in past years, I found that they were not a benefit for me as a chronic pain patient. I spent everything in my HSA account as fast as it went in from my husband’s paychecks.

But for others who don't have to worry about paying for long-term chronic care needs, I have seen the HSA system work and help spread out costs throughout the year. HSA accounts would be particularly attractive to healthy young people with high-deductible insurance plans.  

5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

I believe in 100% price transparency from all providers, insurance companies, pharmacies and hospitals. We should be able to easily see the costs of our care.

6. Give Medicaid block grants directly to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal oversight. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse.

I like this as well. Giving each state the ability to fund and provide their own Medicaid benefits will be beneficial. We have to cut down on fraud and get proper and timely access of care to those who need it most.

7. Remove barriers that prevent foreign drug makers from offering safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Allowing consumers access to imported and cheaper drugs will save money.

We need more abuse resistant medications, along with drugs that are more affordable. I agree that allowing consumers access to imported drugs will give us more options and help cut prices.

These seven steps are just the start of what we need to make the system work better. The process will take years to figure out. Let’s keep our voices loud as patients and advocates, so that we keep the good parts of our healthcare system and increase access for those who need it by lowering costs and opening access to alternative treatments. We also need to address the abuse of opioid medication, while maintaining access for those that truly need it. 

Barby Ingle suffers from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD) and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain Foundation. She is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics.

More information about Barby can be found at her website.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.