Clarification of Final Rules for Grandfathered Plans, Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits, Rescissions, Dependent Coverage, Appeals, and Patient Protections Under the Affordable Care Act. Final rule; clarification.

On November 18, 2015, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) published a final rule in the Federal Register titled "Final Rules for Grandfathered Plans, Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits, Rescissions, Dependent Coverage, Appeals, and Patient Protections Under the Affordable Care Act" (the November 2015 final rule), regarding, in part, the coverage of emergency services by non- grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage, including the requirement that non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage limit cost-sharing for out-of-network emergency services and, as part of that rule, pay at least a minimum amount for out-of-network emergency services. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which on August 31, 2017 granted in part and denied in part without prejudice ACEP's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the Departments to respond to the public comments from ACEP and others. In response, the Departments are issuing this notice of clarification to provide a more thorough explanation of the Departments' decision not to adopt recommendations made by ACEP and certain other commenters in the November 2015 final rule.

How Would Americans' Out-of-Pocket Costs Change If Insurance Plans Were Allowed to Exclude Coverage for Preexisting Conditions?

Issue: A current Republican legislative proposal would permit insurers to offer plans that exclude coverage of treatment for preexisting health conditions, even while the bill would maintain the Affordable Care Act's rule prohibiting denial of coverage to people with a preexisting condition. Goal: Estimate patients' out-of-pocket costs for five common preexisting conditions if the bill were to become law and assess any additional impact on out-of-pocket expenditures if spending on care for preexisting conditions no longer counted against plan deductibles. Methods: Analysis of 2014­2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data for the privately insured adult population under age 65; and the proposed Ensuring Coverage for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions Act (S. 3388). Findings and Conclusion: If preexisting conditions were excluded from coverage, nearly all people with these conditions would see increased out-of-pocket costs. Average out-of-pocket costs for those with cancer or diabetes would triple, while costs for arthritis, asthma, and hypertension care would rise by 27 percent to 39 percent. Some individuals would see much larger increases: for example, 10 percent of diabetes patients could expect to incur over $9,200 annually in out-of-pocket costs. Many with preexisting conditions also would spend more on conditions that are not excluded, since out-of-pocket spending on their preexisting conditions would no longer count toward the deductible and out-of-pocket maximum.

The effect of pre-existing health conditions on the cost of recovery from road traffic injury: insights from data linkage of medicare and compensable injury claims in Victoria, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is known to affect length of hospital stay and mortality after trauma but less is known about its impact on recovery beyond the immediate post-accident care period. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of pre-existing health conditions in the cost of recovery from road traffic injury using health service use records for 1 year before and after the injury. METHODS: Individuals who claimed Transport Accident Commission (TAC) compensation for a non-catastrophic injury that occurred between 2010 and 2012 in Victoria, Australia and who provided consent for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) linkage were included (n = 738) in the analysis. PBS and MBS records dating from 12 months prior to injury were provided by the Department of Human Services (Canberra, Australia). Pre-injury use of health service items and pharmaceuticals were considered to indicate pre-existing health condition. Bayesian Model Averaging techniques were used to identify the items that were most strongly correlated with recovery cost. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the impact of these items on the cost of injury recovery in terms of compensated ambulance, hospital, medical, and overall claim cost. RESULTS: Out of the 738 study participants, 688 used at least one medical item (total of 15,625 items) and 427 used at least one pharmaceutical item (total of 9846). The total health service cost of recovery was $10,115,714. The results show that while pre-existing conditions did not have any significant impact on the total cost of recovery, categorical costs were affected: e.g. on average, for every anaesthetic in the year before the accident, hospital cost of recovery increased by 24 % [95 % CI: 13, 36 %] and for each pathological test related to established diabetes, hospital cost increased by $10,407 [5466.78, 15346.28]. For medical costs, each anaesthetic led to $258 higher cost [174.16, 341.16] and every prescription of drugs used in diabetes increased the cost by 8 % [5, 11 %]. CONCLUSIONS: Services related to pre-existing conditions, mainly chronic and surgery-related, are likely to increase certain components of cost of recovery after road traffic trauma but pre-existing physical health has little impact on the overall recovery costs.

Final Rules for Grandfathered Plans, Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits, Rescissions, Dependent Coverage, Appeals, and Patient Protections Under the Affordable Care Act. Final rules.

This document contains final regulations regarding grandfathered health plans, preexisting condition exclusions, lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits, rescissions, coverage of dependent children to age 26, internal claims and appeal and external review processes, and patient protections under the Affordable Care Act. It finalizes changes to the proposed and interim final rules based on comments and incorporates subregulatory guidance issued since publication of the proposed and interim final rules.

How much do preexisting chronic conditions contribute to age differences in health care expenditures after a work-related musculoskeletal injury?

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the contribution of preexisting chronic conditions on age differences in health care expenditures for the management of work-related musculoskeletal injuries in British Columbia. METHODS: A secondary analysis of workers' compensation claims submitted over the 5-year period between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006 (N = 55,827 claims among men and 32,141 claims among women). Path models examined the relationships between age and health care expenditures, and the extent to which age differences in health care expenditures were mediated by preexisting chronic conditions. Models were adjusted for individual, injury, occupational, and industrial covariates. RESULTS: The relationship between age and health care expenditures differed for men and women, with a stronger age gradient observed among men. Preexisting osteoarthritis and coronary heart disease were associated with elevated health care expenditures among men and women. Diabetes was associated with elevated health care expenditures among men only, and depression was associated with elevated health care expenditures among women only. The percentage of the age effect on health care expenditures that was mediated through preexisting chronic conditions increased from 12.4% among 25-34-year-old men (compared with 15-24 y) to 26.6% among 55+-year-old men; and 14.6% among 25-34-year-old women to 35.9% among women 55 and older. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that differences in preexisting chronic conditions have an impact on the relationship between older age and greater health care expenditures after a work-related musculoskeletal injury. The differing prevalence of preexisting osteoarthritis, coronary heart disease, and to a lesser extent diabetes (among men) and depression (among women) across age groups explain a nontrivial proportion of the age effect in health care expenditures after injury. However, approximately two thirds or more of the age effect in health care expenditures remains unexplained.

Cost of Acute and Follow-Up Care in Patients With Pre-Existing Psychiatric Diagnoses Undergoing Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: The impact of psychiatric comorbidities on the cost of cancer care in radiation oncology practices is not well studied. We assessed the acute and 24-month follow-up costs for patients with and without pre-existing psychiatric comorbidities undergoing radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with cancer undergoing radiation therapy at our institution from 2009 to 2014 were denoted as having pre-existing psychiatric conditions (Psych group) if they had associated billing codes for any of the 422 International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision psychiatric conditions during the 12 months before their cancer diagnosis. The Elixhauser comorbidity index was calculated, excluding psychiatric categories. Medicare reimbursement was assigned to professional services, and Medicare departmental cost-to-charge ratios were applied to service line hospital charges and adjusted for inflation to create 2017 standardized costs. Acute (0-6 month) and follow-up (6-24 month) costs were subcategorized into clinic, emergency department, hospital inpatient, and outpatient costs. RESULTS: Among 1275 patients, 126 (9.9%) had at least 1 pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. On univariate analysis, both acute and long-term costs were higher in the Psych group. The largest significant differences in costs were follow-up hospital inpatient costs ($5861 higher; 95% confidence interval [CI], $687-$11,035; P = .002), follow-up hospital outpatient costs ($2086 higher; 95% CI, -$142 to $4,314; P = .040), and follow-up emergency department costs ($396 higher; 95% CI, $149-$643; P < .001). Age, race, sex, and treatment modalities were comparable, but the Psych group patients had more median comorbidities (2 vs 1) and had more respiratory cancer diagnoses than the nonpsychiatric group (31% vs 17%). On multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, cancer diagnosis, and comorbidities, global follow-up costs remained 150% higher in the Psych group (P < .001). Acute costs were similar after adjustment (P = .63). CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric comorbidities independently predict elevated healthcare costs in patients treated for cancer. Radiation oncology payment models should consider adjustments to account for psychiatric comorbidities because addressing these may mitigate cost differential.

Prevalence of Pre-existing Conditions Among Community Health Center Patients Before and After the Affordable Care Act.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of pre-existing conditions for community health center (CHC) patients who gained insurance coverage post-Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: We analyzed electronic health record data from 78,059 patients aged 19 to 64 uninsured at their last visit pre-ACA from 386 CHCs in 19 states. We compared the prevalence and types of pre-existing conditions pre-ACA (2012 to 2013) and post-ACA (2014 to 2015), by insurance status and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Pre-ACA, >50% of patients in the cohort had ≥1 Pre-existing condition. Post-ACA, >70% of those who gained insurance coverage had ≥1 condition. Post-ACA, all racial/ethnic subgroups showed an increase in the number of pre-existing conditions, with non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients experiencing the largest increases (adjusted prevalence difference, 18.9; 95% CI, 18.2 to 19.6 and 18.3; 95% CI, 17.8 to 18.7, respectively). The most common conditions post-ACA were mental health disorders with the highest prevalence among patients who gained Medicaid (45.6%) and lowest among those who gained private coverage (30.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the high prevalence of pre-existing conditions among CHC patients and the large increase in the proportion of patients with at least 1 of these diagnoses post-ACA. Given how common these conditions are, repealing pre-existing condition protections could be extremely harmful to millions of patients and would likely exacerbate health care and health disparities.

Behavioral Health Coverage In The Individual Market Increased After ACA Parity Requirements.

As of January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act designated mental health and substance use services as an essential health benefit in Marketplace plans and extended parity protections to the individual and small-group markets. We analyzed documents for seventy-eight individual and small-group plans in 2014 (after parity provisions took effect) and sixty comparison plans in 2013 (the year before parity provisions took effect) to understand the degree to which coverage for mental health and substance use care improved relative to medical/surgical benefits. The results suggest that plan issuers did what the provisions required them to do. Although in 2013 a lower proportion of plans covered mental health or substance use care, compared to medical/surgical care, in 2014 the proportions were the same. If essential health benefit requirements were to be removed and mental health and substance use coverage becomes similar to that in 2013, as many as 20 percent of the plans in our sample would not cover these conditions. To determine whether increases in behavioral health coverage will result in improved access to behavioral health services requires complementary data on the size of provider networks and use of services.

Impact of pre-existing chronic conditions on age differences in sickness absence after a musculoskeletal work injury: a path analysis approach.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the extent to which a greater prevalence of pre-existing chronic conditions among older workers explains why older age is associated with longer duration of sickness absence (SA) following a musculoskeletal work-related injury in British Columbia. METHODS: A secondary analysis of workers' compensation claims in British Columbia over three time periods (1997-1998; 2001-2002, and 2005-2006), the study comprised 102 997 and 53 882 claims among men and women, respectively. Path models examined the relationships between age and days of absence and the relative contribution of eight different pre-existing chronic conditions (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, thyroid conditions, hearing problems, and depression) to this relationship. Models were adjusted for individual, injury, occupational, and industrial covariates. RESULTS: The relationship between age and length of SA was stronger for men than women. A statistically significant indirect effect was present between older age, diabetes, and longer days of SA among both men and women. Indirect effects between age and days of SA were also present through osteoarthritis, among men but not women, and coronary heart disease, among women but not men. Depression was associated with longer duration of SA but was most prevalent among middle-aged claimants. Approximately 70-78% of the effect of age on days of SA remained unexplained after accounting for pre-existing conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-existing chronic conditions, specifically diabetes, osteoarthritis and coronary heart disease, represent important factors that explain why older age is associated with more days of SA following a musculoskeletal injury. Given the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions among labor market participants (and subsequently injured workers) moderate reductions in age differences in SA could be gained by better understanding the mechanisms linking these conditions to longer durations of SA.

How the affordable care act and mental health parity and addiction equity act greatly expand coverage of behavioral health care.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will expand coverage of mental health and substance use disorder benefits and federal parity protections to over 60 million Americans. The key to this expansion is the essential health benefit provision in the ACA that requires coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services at parity with general medical benefits. Other ACA provisions that should improve access to treatment include requirements on network adequacy, dependent coverage up to age 26, preventive services, and prohibitions on annual and lifetime limits and preexisting exclusions. The ACA offers states flexibility in expanding Medicaid (primarily to childless adults, not generally eligible previously) to cover supportive services needed by those with significant behavioral health conditions in addition to basic benefits at parity. Through these various new requirements, the ACA in conjunction with Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) will expand coverage of behavioral health care by historic proportions.