Redefining "Medical Care."

President Donald J. Trump has said he will repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with health savings accounts (HSAs). Conservatives have long preferred individual accounts to meet social welfare needs instead of more traditional entitlement programs. The types of "medical care" that can be reimbursed through an HSA are listed in section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and include expenses "for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body." In spite of the broad language, regulations and court interpretations have narrowed this definition substantially. It does not include the many social factors that determine health outcomes. Though the United States spends over seventeen percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on "healthcare", the country's focus on the traditional medicalized model of health results in overall population health that is far beneath the results of other countries that spend significantly less. Precision medicine is one exceptional way in which American healthcare has focused more on individuals instead of providing broad, one-size-fits-all medical care. The precision medicine movement calls for using the genetic code of individuals to both predict future illness and to target treatments for current illnesses. Yet the definition of "medical care" under the Code remains the same for all. My proposal for precision healthcare accounts involves two steps-- the first of which requires permitting physicians to write prescriptions for a broader range of goods and services. The social determinants of health are as important to health outcomes as are surgical procedures and drugs--or perhaps more so according to many population health studies. The second step requires agencies and courts to interpret what constitutes "medical care" under the Code differently depending on the taxpayer's income level. Childhood sports programs and payments for fruits and vegetables may be covered for those in the lower income brackets who could not otherwise afford these items and would not choose to spend scarce resources on them if they could. This all assumes that the government takes funds previously used to subsidize the purchase of health insurance under the ACA (or allocates new funds) and puts the funds in individual accounts so the poor or near poor have money to pay for these expenses. Section I of this Article will explore the current definition of medical care, which excludes the social determinants of health from "healthcare" spending. I then address how precision medicine has changed the types of services and treatments that it makes sense to reimburse for each individual. If efficacy can vary from person to person based on genetic code, then it also can vary depending on environment. There is an opportunity to not only vary the types of "medical care" that can be reimbursed or deducted within the traditional range of services and drugs, but also outside of that range. Section II addresses the historical shift towards health financing through individual accounts, and specifically through HSAs. If this is the only avenue for health reform in the next few years, I advocate using it to engage in the type of experiments that are typically only possible under the cover of tax expenditures. My proposal for precision healthcare accounts moves the government to experiment with individual social spending that can lead to improved overall health outcomes. Finally, in Section III, I address two dichotomies that affect any healthcare proposal: (1) entitlement programs v. grants-in-aid, and (2) pooled insurance v. consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs). In the end, I argue that an entitlement method of funding precision HSAs along with pooled insurance subsidized by the government is the most realistic resolution to these dichotomies. Only a broad-based entitlement to funding for all healthcare expenses (medical and social) allows for significant improvements in overall population health.

The Evolving Health Policy Landscape and Suggested Geriatric Tenets to Guide Future Responses.

We cannot view the future of healthcare but we can sense that big changes are afoot. Many revolve around the plans to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act. We speculate on some potential areas of change in the context of a set of tenets about what care for older persons should address.

Looking Under the Hood of the Cadillac Tax.

One effect of the Affordable Care Act's "Cadillac tax" (now delayed until 2020) is to undo part of the existing federal tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance. The specific features of this tax on high-cost health plans--notably, the inclusion of tax-favored savings vehicles such as health savings accounts (HSAs) in the formula for determining who is subject to the tax--are designed primarily to maximize revenue and minimize coverage disruptions, not to reduce health spending. Thus, at least initially, these savings accounts, rather than enrollee cost-sharing or other plan features, are likely to be affected most by the tax as employers act to limit their HSA contributions. Because high earners are the ones benefiting most from tax-preferred accounts, the high-cost plan tax will probably be more progressive than prior analyses have suggested, while having only a modest impact on total health spending.

Donald Trump's Health Care Platform.

A loose framework of broadly worded ideas, subject to change.

Health Insurance, Health Savings Accounts and Healthcare Utilization.

Assuming symmetric information, we show that a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) combined with a tax-favored health savings account (HSA) induces more savings and less treatment compared with a full coverage plan under reasonable risk preferences. Furthermore, a higher tax subsidy increases savings in any case but decreases medical utilization if and only if treatment expenses are above the deductible. A larger deductible increases savings but does not necessarily decrease healthcare utilization. Whether an HDHP/HSA combination is preferred over a full coverage contract depends on absolute risk aversion. A higher tax advantage increases the attractiveness of an HDHP/HSA combination, whereas the effects of changes in the deductible are ambiguous. The paper shows that a potential regulator needs to carefully set the size of the deductible as only in a certain corridor of the probability of sickness, its effect on aggregate healthcare costs are unambiguously favorable.

Health Savings Accounts: An Emerging Cornerstone of the Health-Wealth Bridge?.

Several trends may help make health savings accounts (HSAs) a ubiquitous part of Americans' financial planning. When one looks at the totality of factors, it is easy to see how HSAs can become a vital connection be- tween active and retiree health care needs and between retirement income and retiree medical needs. However, it is also easy to see the clouds over the horizon that could stall HSA growth in coming years. This article discusses both.

The HSA in Your Future: Defined Contribution Retiree Medical Coverage.

In 2004, when evaluating health savings account (HSA) business opportunities, I predicted: "Twenty-five years ago, no one had ever heard of 401(k); 25 years from now, everyone will have an HSA." Twelve years later, growth in HSA eligibility, participation, contributions and asset accumulations suggests we just might achieve that prediction. This article shares one plan sponsor's journey to help employees accumulate assets to fund medical costs-while employed and after retirement, It documents a 30-plus-year retiree health insurance transition from a defined benefit to a defined dollar structure and culminating in a full-replacement defined contribution structure using HSA-qualifying high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and then redeploying/repurposing the HSA to incorporate a savings incentive for retiree medical costs.

The Affordable Care Act and Assisted Reproductive Technology Use.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has prompted numerous gender and sexuality controversies. We describe and analyze those involving assisted reproductive technologies (ART). ART in the United States has been regulated in piecemeal fashion, with oversight primarily by individual states. While leaving state authority largely intact, the ACA federalized key practices by establishing essential health benefits (EHBs) that regulate insurance markets and prohibit insurance-coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions. Whatever their intentions, the ACA's drafters thus put infertility in a subtly provocative new light clinically, financially, normatively, politically, and culturally. With particular attention to normative and political dynamics embedded in plausible regulatory trajectories, we review--and attempt to preview--the ACA's effects on infertility-related delivery of health services, on ART utilization, and on reproductive medicine as a factor in American society.

HSA programs for groups: employer versus employee responsibilities.

Employers implementing a health savings account (HSA) program face a shared compliance burden with their employees. The law dictates that all HSAs are individual accounts that must be opened by an Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-approved custodian or trustee. The individual account features combined with a required third-party custodian place much of the compliance burden for HSAs on the employee and custodian rather than the employer. Employees are compensated for the additional burden because HSAs give them more control over their health care money, and employers are generally pleased with their own reduced compliance burden. The shared compliance responsibilities, however, create confusion and misunderstanding for both employers and employees. This article distinguishes between the responsibilities of the employer and the employees for HSAs.

The impact of health reform on HSAs.

The health care reform law contains only two direct changes to health savings accounts (HSAs): eliminating the ability to use the HSA for over-the-counter drugs and increasing the early withdrawal penalty from 10% to 20%. The indirect changes, however, could drastically curtail the growth of HSAs or even result in the end of HSAs. The actual impact is uncertain at this time because much of the detail of the law is left to regulatory interpretation. This article identifies and analyzes seven areas in the new law that could indirectly impact HSAs.

Medicare program; Medicare Advantage and prescription drug benefit programs. Final rule.

This final rule finalizes revisions to the regulations governing the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C), prescription drug benefit program (Part D) and section 1876 cost plans including conforming changes to the MA regulations to implement statutory requirements regarding special needs plans (SNPs), private fee-for-service plans (PFFS), regional preferred provider organizations (RPPO) plans, and Medicare medical savings accounts (MSA) plans, cost-sharing for dual-eligible enrollees in the MA program and prescription drug pricing, coverage, and payment processes in the Part D program, and requirements governing the marketing of Part C and Part D plans.