Monday, September 30, 2024

Michigan tests the political limits of abortion — again

Presented by the Coalition for Medicare Choices: Delivered daily by 10 a.m., Pulse examines the latest news in health care politics and policy.
Sep 30, 2024 View in browser
 
POLITICO's Pulse newsletter logo

By Ben Leonard and Chelsea Cirruzzo

Presented by the Coalition for Medicare Choices

Driving the Day

Abortion rights protesters attend a rally outside the Michigan state capitol in Lansing, Michigan.

Democrats are concerned that voters in Michigan who pushed for abortion protections two years ago no longer have the issue on their radar. | Paul Sancya/AP

KEEPING VOTERS FOCUSED ON ABORTION — Voters’ perception of the state of abortion in Michigan could determine the state’s crucial electoral votes and which party wins the state’s open House and Senate seats that could decide majorities in both chambers of Congress, POLITICO’s Alice Miranda Ollstein reports.

Republican candidates barnstorming Michigan argue that abortion is a non-issue, with rights secured by a ballot initiative that enshrined protections in the state constitution two years ago.

Democrats need to convince voters of the opposite: that access still hangs by a thread, vulnerable if former President Donald Trump and Republicans win in November.

Democrats swept Michigan in 2022 by campaigning on abortion rights, winning control of all branches of government in Lansing for the first time in nearly 40 years and becoming the first state to overturn an abortion ban by popular vote after the fall of Roe. This year, the presidential and congressional races that could dictate which party holds power in Washington remain tight.

The state’s outgoing Democratic senior senator, Debbie Stabenow, told POLITICO she’s worried that many voters, particularly students who volunteered and cast ballots for the first time in 2022 for the abortion-rights ballot initiative, think their work on that front is done.

“There’s a false sense of comfort that somehow we’re okay because [abortion is] in the Michigan Constitution,” she said. “The minute we explain the stakes, they’re furious that … that it could be ripped away.”

It’s a warning sign for Democrats in other battleground states that have passed, or are poised to pass, state referendums on abortion that it’s harder to maintain the same level of voter outrage and enthusiasm after those protections are in place — a mirror image of anti-abortion activists’ complaints that many in their ranks disengaged after the fall of Roe.

A KFF poll of women voters in Michigan released in July shows conservatives’ messaging could be working. The survey found that majorities across age and party affiliation viewed abortion rights as “decided” instead of “still being determined,” and abortion was ranked fourth among the top issues motivating Michigan women voters, behind inflation, threats to democracy and immigration.

“In 2022, we lost the top of the ticket in Michigan by 11 points, and it was strongly driven by views on the abortion issue,” Pete Hoekstra, Michigan Republican Party chair, told POLITICO. “Now, being at a neck-and-neck race, it’s clear that the abortion issue is not resonating the way that Democrats would hope that it would.”

Still, conservatives are working hard to diffuse Democrats’ argument that abortion rights remain under threat in Michigan, which some on the right acknowledge has proven effective.

WELCOME TO MONDAY PULSE. Duke football is 5-0 and won the Victory Bell. Football school! Send your tips, scoops and feedback to bleonard@politico.com and ccirruzzo@politico.com and follow along @_BenLeonard_ and @ChelseaCirruzzo.

 

A message from the Coalition for Medicare Choices:

Policymakers have more than 33 million reasons to protect and strengthen Medicare Advantage. Seniors vote – and they’re voting for Medicare Advantage. Learn more.

 
ELECTION 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on their campaign bus

Vice President Kamala Harris is releasing a report on health policy issues just before the vice presidential debate Tuesday between her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance. | Julia Nikhinson/AP

HEALTH TAKES CENTER STAGE Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign looks to put health policy issues at the center of vice-presidential debate week, releasing a new report this morning laying out what it says will be the consequences of a Trump administration’s health policies, POLITICO's Daniel Payne writes.

The campaign’s report argues former President Donald Trump’s plans for health policy, based partly on the former president’s public comments and analysis from policy wonks, would mean higher care costs, less access to coverage and more restrictions on abortion.

Trump and running mate Sen. JD Vance have argued their approach to the Affordable Care Actcontrary to some expert analysis — would increase access and affordability. Trump has flip-flopped on cutting Medicare benefits, at one time suggesting they could be the target of cuts and later pledging to not touch them.

And Trump has said he supports leaving the issue of abortion rights to the states, saying he doesn’t support a federal ban but stopping short of saying whether he would veto one.

The report comes as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Phil McGraw hold a “Make America Healthy Again” event in Philadephia today on behalf of the Trump campaign.

AROUND THE AGENCIES

MA PREMIUM UPDATE — Medicare Advantage premiums are projected to fall slightly as new policies aimed at reducing out-of-pocket prescription costs take hold, according to CMS.

POLITICO’s Robert King reports that the agency said average monthly premiums for privately run MA plans are expected to decrease from $18.23 this year to $17 in 2025. Standalone drug coverage plan premiums are projected to fall similarly.

The Medicare Advantage program, in which more than half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled, will likely continue to grow in 2025. CMS projects enrollment to be 35.7 million people, up from 32.8 million this year. The announcement comes as CMS has sought to blunt the impact of several new policies aimed at lowering out-of-pocket costs for older Americans.

The Inflation Reduction Act installed a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket costs for drugs purchased at the pharmacy counter. It also ensured Medicare enrollees could pay for high drug costs in monthly installments instead of one lump sum.

Several health care experts had warned that Medicare Advantage and standalone drug plans could raise premiums to compensate for extra responsibilities. CMS released a temporary program in late July that will enable some Medicare plans to get an extra $15 per beneficiary a month next year to help soften the blow of the new policies’ cost.

The response: Chris Bond, a spokesperson for insurer lobby AHIP, said in a statement that the group is reviewing the data, but national averages don’t reflect that “highly variable consequences” will be made to CMS payment changes that insurers have seen as cuts in recent years. CMS has said the changes amount to a pay bump after adjusting for the insured population's health.

Bond said the moves could mean reduced choice in coverage, higher costs and fewer benefits.

Mary Beth Donahue, CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, a research and advocacy group supporting Medicare Advantage, said that older adults could see disruptions, including plan closures, because of the changes.

What’s next: Open enrollment begins next month.

FIRST IN PULSE: CLOCK TICKS FOR J&J — Johnson & Johnson faces a deadline today to either withdraw its plan to require 340B hospitals to apply for rebates for Stelara and Xarelto instead of giving an upfront discount or face potential sanctions.

J&J told disproportionate share hospitals last month that it would need to obtain the two drugs, one for psoriatic arthritis and the other for blood clots, at a commercial price and then obtain rebates once the medicines were administered to patients. The Health Resources and Services Administration has said J&J is violating its obligations under the 340B statute.

Nearly 190 members of Congress, led by Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), wrote to HHS Friday, saying the move could have “severe consequences" for safety net providers and patients and called on the agency to use “every enforcement tool at [its] disposal.”

“The 340B program was created to serve our most vulnerable neighbors. J&J actions threaten both the integrity and effectiveness of the program,” Spanberger wrote in a letter first obtained by Pulse, joined by members across the ideological spectrum, including Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Don Bacon (R-Neb.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

The consequences: If J&J doesn’t comply in time, it could face fines and its drugs could no longer be covered in Medicare or Medicaid.

J&J doesn’t appear to be relenting, saying it is “committed to the 340B Program as it was originally intended to serve as an important safety-net program for vulnerable patients.”

“J&J has clear legal authority to implement a rebate model,” a company spokesperson told Pulse. “The 340B statute clearly and unequivocally contemplates rebates as a mechanism for manufacturers to offer the 340B price to covered entities.”

The bigger picture: The drug discount program established in the 1990s mandates drugmakers to sell outpatient drugs at discounts to hospitals, community health centers and many provider-based rural health clinics. There’s a bipartisan and pharmaceutical industry-backed push to reform the program.

The program has grown substantially since its inception, with participation from a wider range of providers and an increase in the amount of drugs bought. Facilities purchased more than $53 billion in discounted drugs in 2022, up from $7 billion a decade prior. Pharmaceutical companies contend that 340B has strayed from its safety-net mission, while hospitals argue the program allows them to make the most of limited resources.

 

A message from the Coalition for Medicare Choices:

Advertisement Image

 
Cybersecurity

PROPOSED MANDATE PANNED — Groups representing hospitals and executives of major health systems and insurers are critical of a new proposal from top lawmakers that would subject them to new cybersecurity requirements.

Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Senate Intelligence Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) unveiled sweeping legislation last week that would require HHS to enforce minimum cybersecurity standards in the health care sector. It would also provide $800 million for two years for 2,000 rural and urban safety-net hospitals to prepare and $500 million to encourage hospitals to adopt enhanced practices.

A spokesperson for the Federation of American Hospitals said hospitals make significant cybersecurity investments.

“Penalizing hospitals that are the victims of sophisticated criminal behavior diverts resources away from improving patient care,” the FAH spokesperson said.

The Healthcare Leadership Council, which represents health care executives from groups like major health systems, insurers and tech firms, called its focus on “punishing” health care firms “misguided.” The group pointed to previous recommendations, including one that Congress offer safe harbor to organizations facing incidents “beyond their control” that implemented “comprehensive” protections.

WHAT WE'RE READING

POLITICO's Rachel Bluth reports on California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoing attempts by state lawmakers to regulate pharmacy benefit managers.

Rachel also writes about Gov. Newsom signing a law mandating that insurance companies cover fertility treatments like IVF for same-sex couples.

CBS News reports on the CEO of the embattled Steward Health Care resigning.

 

A message from the Coalition for Medicare Choices:

More than half of America’s seniors and people living with disabilities choose Medicare Advantage because it delivers better benefits, better access to care, and better value. The more than 33 million Americans who choose Medicare Advantage receive higher-quality care and have access to more preventive services compared to those in fee-for-service Medicare – while saving more than $2,500 a year.

To protect and strengthen their Medicare Advantage coverage, thousands of seniors in the Coalition for Medicare Choices are making their voices heard from their local communities to Washington, D.C. Their message is clear: Medicare Advantage gives them better care and lower costs, and policymakers should defend it.

This fall, seniors are voting – and they’re voting for Medicare Advantage. Learn more.

 
 

Follow us on Twitter

Dan Goldberg @dancgoldberg

Chelsea Cirruzzo @chelseacirruzzo

Lauren Gardner @Gardner_LM

Sophie Gardner @sophie_gardnerj

Kelly Hooper @kelhoops

Robert King @rking_19

Ben Leonard @_BenLeonard_

David Lim @davidalim

Megan Messerly @meganmesserly

Alice Miranda Ollstein @aliceollstein

Carmen Paun @carmenpaun

Daniel Payne @_daniel_payne

Ruth Reader @RuthReader

Erin Schumaker @erinlschumaker

 

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Listen on Apple Podcast
 

To change your alert settings, please log in at https://login.politico.com/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com/settings

This email was sent to edwardlorilla1986.paxforex@blogger.com by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service

No comments:

Post a Comment

Upstart Holdings: Can AI Transform the Consumer Lending Industry?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries worldwide, and consumer finance is no exception. Traditional credit assessments, ofte...