Today Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed a truly historic law that will put Vermont on the path towards being the first state in America with a progressive and unified health care system.
The goal of the Vermont law is to integrate all the pieces of America’s byzantine health insurance system into one system overseen by the state, and to achieve the benefits of single payer. This universal, publicly financed system will be called Green Mountain Care.
While the law puts Vermont on the path to achieving this goal, there are still some major hurdles. By 2013 the state will need to decide on revenue sources to pay for some parts of it. An integral part of addressing the funding issue will be the need for multiple waivers from several federal laws that will allow the state to fold the administration and funding of federal insurance programs into Green Mountain Care.
Some of the potential waivers include:
- Medicaid waiver
- SCHIP waiver
- Waiver to locally manage traditional Medicare
- Medicare Part D waiver to include seniors in single drug formulary for the state
- Waiver from some workers compensation laws
- Waivers for multiple provision of the Affordable Care Act
The more favorable terms of the the waivers, the better Vermont will be able to fund the program and increase efficiency by streamlining the system in the state.
While waivers from many of the provisions of the ACA need congressional approval, others are at the discretion of the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS has been granting waivers freely to corporations like McDonalds that want to offer worse coverage to their employees than the ACA mandates. They’ve also been granting waivers to states seeking lower medical loss ratios, which basically allows them to offer junk insurance on the exchanges.
Under current law, it’s not possible to get waivers from the exchange/tax credit provisions of the Affordable Care Act until 2017 unless the Congress passes the Wyden-Brown “Empowering States to Innovate Act.” This will likely be what delays Vermont from fully realize its goal until 2017. But the other federal waivers are equally if not more important to the plan’s success.
For example, Medicaid and Medicare cover roughly 35 percent of people in the state, while the individual exchange created by the ACA will likely only cover about 5 percent. Since the goal of the Vermont plan is to produce greater efficiency by centralizing, standardizing, and simplify the administration of the health care system, the more people that can be brought into the new unified Green Mountain Care plan,the better it will function. If HHS does not grant those waivers, it will leave a third of the state outside the plan and it will serious hamper its effectiveness.
Getting waivers from HHS is going to be an important part of any state plan to implement their own system. And President Obama has already expressed his support for allowing states to begin receiving waivers from the ACA in 2014 rather than waiting until 2017. That’s why FDL is joining with PNHP to ask HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to commit to granting Vermont the waivers it needs to make Green Mountain Care the best program it can possibly be for the people of Vermont.




25 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Thanks, Jon.
Advancing single payer was one of the most important issues to our members in our recent survey. We’re really excited to be working with PNHP to help make that happen.
A real effort “to Win the Future” one state at a time.
Great post! …in fact, I am thinking about moving to Vermont, for the health care.
Heh, I think there are many doctors who have the same plan.
That’s how the GOP and corporate America do it: use states as testing grounds, then expand the program.
They generally skip a critical middle step: use states as testing grounds, demonstrate something works, and then expand the program.
That middle step is the goal here. If we can prove single payer is effective, then nobody should have any argument about expanding a popular, fiscally responsible, successful program. Like Medicare.
Hate to say this, but this is the general idea the GOP has been promoting for a long time; let states work out their best solutions on health care. not a big national system.
Vermont is a great example of this.
Thanks for your reply Ms. Hamsher. I truly believe that the key to winning is the messaging. I think we all must be on message and use correct terminology as you always do. We as posters must unite together for the common cause and put our differences aside. I am with you all the way.
I would think about it also, but I am on Medicare with an Advantage Plan (for now) and it’s working just fine (for now). However, I recently had an $85 co-pay for an antibiotic (retail about $260) that isn’t generic yet. I wonder how many folks with no Medicare and no other insurance could afford $260 for ten pills?
Jane/Jon- trying again.
Where is the statutory authority for HHS to give waivers for Medicare and Medicare Part D?
also, workers’ comp is protected in many state constitutions (like AZ).
Please help us FDLers understand how we can be supportive while staying true to our principles of first supporting the rule of law?
The Waivers are already in ACA and scheduled for availability to use in 2017. It’s just a matter of moving that time frame forward for VT to be able to execute sooner.
I’m not sure I understand. You want to be sure it’s not illegal to ask HHS for waivers because it might undermine “the rule of law?”
The Vermont bill actually cites the need for the waivers, so I’m pretty sure they checked to make sure it wasn’t illegal to ask for them.
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2011/5/26/vermont-governor-to-sign-legislation-on-singlepayer-system.aspx
The ACA says HHS can’t grant exceptions to states to certain parts of the ACA until 2017, but it doesn’t say that applying for them is illegal.
Except when it comes to single payer, that’s when they seem to draw the line.
Waivers from Medicaid have been granted by HHS several times in the past under section 1115 https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidStWaivProgDemoPGI/03_Research&DemonstrationProjects-Section1115.asp
The waiver to locally run Medicare has never been granted but the legislative experts employed by the state of Vermont do say HHS has the authority, for example Maryland has a waiver to have Medicare follow their hospital all-payer system.
interesting re: maryland… they are currently the only state with a medicare waiver… in MD’s case to have government set the price for all hospital services regardless of payer…
Giving VT what would effectively amount to a ‘block grant’ of the total amount of Medicare dollars to spend may be a bridge too far…
interestingly, the Health Care Compact, being pushed primarily in red states, would be perfect and would solve much of the funding problems to get VT started…
I signed, but what are the odds Obama strangles this thing in its crib?
Thanks Jon, signed. Now if only CA will follow.
My understanding is that they don’t exactly want a Medicare block grant, just much more management over the control. More like doctors would bill the state system when seeing seniors for each thing than the state would get the feds to re-reimburse for that persons care.
My experience has been that, with former ins agents and brokers and their accountants being about half the state legislators, the cost of buying bills favorable to insurance in a State is much less than getting any Federal law passed.
The Health Care Compact – after approval by Congress – would, as stated in the Texas Law (Georgia and another state I can’t remember have passed this), suspend “all federal laws, rules, regulations and orders” that conflict with local health care policies.
I don’t want to go in that direction.
If Mass gets its change from fee for service law passed this fall, I suspect they will still need a waiver for it to apply to the Medicare and Medicaid populations – but Maryland got such a waiver for a payment concept change – perhaps this is the way to go. :-)
Jon- so perhaps more that the state would become the intermediary with cms rather than the private medicare intermediaries that exist today… interesting.
papau- if we are confident that single payer is the way to go… we should support the compact — prove it works and then the rest of the sane part of the country will follow.
conversely, the red states that think they can turn HC into some utopian randian marketplace would have the right to fail.
we win either way… and have the benefit of facts and reality, not merely policy papers and comparisons to other countries that simply do not fit well…
This is really great news. My only fear is that Vermont will become overloaded with sick people who flee to the state that will ensure they get good care. It’s great for them but would definitely weight the pool towards sick people which may increase the costs. If single payer can surmount that (and I think it can) it will truly be a testament to the system’s effectiveness.
To be fair, the above effect will also be countered to some degree by the effects of early preventative care. It’s a lot cheaper to let someone see a GP and get some antibiotics for their pneumonia than to let it fester and have them end up on a ventilator for a week. It’s a lot better for the people too!
“…what are the odds Obama strangles this thing in it’s crib?”
Very, very, high. :o(
Federal Government
1 The federal Government is a bridge too far. #HelpDemocracy #PrayForDemocracy
2 Separate money and state: http://wp.me/p1fQnO-6m #HelpDemocracy #PrayForDemocracy
3 Separate the federal government and social policy. http://wp.me/p1fQnO-5Z #HelpDemocracy #PrayForDemocracy
4 United Independent States of America http://wp.me/p1fQnO-2x #HelpDemocracy #PrayForDemocracy
5 The federal government is a bridge too far. Reboot democracy: http://wp.me/s1fQnO-start #HelpDemocracy #PrayForDemocracy
that’s what I’m wondering…
we’ll see where Obama stands as the multiple waiver issue comes to the fore….