- I'm Zac Schultz filling in for Frederica Freyberg.
Tonight on Here and Now, a first look at the president's
latest health care executive order.
After that, a closer look at how health care changes
are affecting Wisconsin hospitals.
Then we'll learn about this week's
high-capacity well court ruling.
And we look ahead to the governor's race
with our continuing series of candidate interviews.
Tonight Milwaukee attorney and candidate Matt Flynn is here.
It's Here and Now for October 13th.
- Funding for Here and Now is provided, in part,
by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.
? ?
- Republicans in Congress may have failed in their attempt
to repeal the Affordable Care Act
but the president is using executive orders
to rewrite the law.
On Thursday, Donald Trump dropped two bombshells
on Obamacare, first, directing federal agencies
to rewrite rules governing so-called
association health plans, allowing smaller, cheaper plans
to be sold unregulated across state lines.
Then Trump announced his administration
would no longer make federal payments
for cost-sharing reductions.
Those are the $7 billion sent to insurance companies
to help subsidize insurance premiums
for low-income families.
In our First Look tonight, we are joined by Bobby Peterson,
Executive Director of ABC for Health
to talk about all these changes to Obamacare.
Thanks for your time today. - Glad to be here.
- What does the end of cost-sharing reduction payments mean
to the health care markets?
- Well, it's going to destabilize things.
It's going to make it more difficult
for insurance companies.
They're going to have to increase their rates.
So I think that we see this as having a destabilizing effect
on the marketplace.
And it actually extends more than just low-income folks.
A family of four at $60,000 a year
would be affected by this.
So, moderate income as well.
It's a real shot at the Affordable Care Act.
But it was somewhat expected.
- Now, just yesterday Wisconsin's commissioner of insurance
announced premiums for Obamacare plans would increase by 36%
on average in this state.
The good news in Wisconsin is Governor Walker
instructed insurance companies to design those plans
with the assumption of no cost-sharing reduction payments
coming from the federal government.
Since they're not coming now, the 36% should be accurate.
But 36% is still a big increase.
- Right, and that's an average.
Probably 20%, 25% of that might be related to the fact that
those cost-sharing reductions were eliminated.
So it's not like we're going to see 20% on top of the 36%.
It's still unfortunate.
But the thing to remember too, is that most of the people
will not be directly affected by this in a significant way
because they'll still be eligible
for the affordable tax credits
and those will help mitigate against some of the increases.
Sadly, there will be more expenses to the federal government
to provide those tax credits.
- Moving on the executive order
on the association health plans,
those are typically used by small businesses
that group together to negotiate their benefits,
but the executive order will let them sell
across state lines without the incoming state having a say
in what's in the plan
and potentially let individuals buy it.
What does that do?
- I think it's part of the crazy quilt
of the insurance marketplace that we have
and it makes it even crazier.
In Wisconsin, when we think about
how insurance is regulated,
there's people that have insured plans
that you have a traditional insurance company
that covers you.
Your employer contracts with the insurance company.
They provide insurance.
Large employers may self-insure, so those types of plans
aren't regulated by the state of Wisconsin.
The new association plans will look more like
large employer plans, that aren't regulated by the state,
that are able to sell across state lines.
They're self-funded plans.
And that means people can offer less quality plans,
plans that are cheaper, but you know,
you get what you pay for and it's unfortunate
because a lot of people
will potentially purchase plans like this
and they'll end up with really poor insurance.
- Another big change that happened before these
last two big changes was that some of the change
in the navigator money that's being put out there
that helps people find the right plan for them
on the ACA marketplace.
Funding has been reduced from 62 million to 37 million.
In Wisconsin, it's a 44% decrease, down to about 750,000.
How does that impact people who are trying to find plans?
- Well, there's less help available.
And it's unfortunate because, as I was just describing,
this stuff is complicated.
Let me just say that the executive orders
don't take effect immediately.
There has to be agency study, a rule-making process.
So none of this is going to happen
until most likely into 2018 at some point.
So it doesn't affect anything right now immediately.
But the navigator funding, I think that's really critical
because we know that as health care is very complicated,
that people have questions.
They need help.
They need guidance.
They need help with the paperwork.
They have appeals.
They need outreach and education on how it works.
And when that gets more limited,
it means that people have less help.
And then what happens,
people don't get the coverage that they need.
Uncompensated care rises.
And that affects everyone.
- Now, going along with reducing the amount of money
for navigators, Trump Administration has also reduced
the amount of money for advertising
to let people know when the enrollment period starts
from 100 million to 10 million.
So give them some help.
When does it start?
- It starts on November 1st and runs through December 15th.
It's a very shortened period of time for open enrollment.
Much shorter than it used to be.
The Trump Administration also scaled back
hours of operation.
Every Sunday, they're going to be down for maintenance.
On weekends, when people may have time for this,
they're going to be largely closed.
So it's a series of efforts to destabilize the marketplace,
in my view, that will hurt consumers.
They're providing opportunities for less expensive coverage,
but it's part of market segmentation
that most insurance commissioners don't like.
They don't want to have plans that they don't have
an opportunity to regulate at some point
to make sure they're up to standards.
This is kind of the wild, wild West of insurance.
We're going back to the bad old days of insurance.
I represented people in some of these plans 30 years ago.
And they're bad.
Preexisting conditions, post-claims underwriting.
I had a client that was suffering from headaches,
went in to see her doctor,
bought one of these short-term policies
that they're proposing in the executive order,
ended up buying insurance, but went back to the doctor later
to find out that she had a brain tumor.
People might say, well, that was a preexisting condition.
She reported her condition on her application accurately.
I went in to see my doctor, I had headaches.
The doctor said, "No, you're suffering from anemia."
That's the kind of thing we're looking at.
Where people get the surprise, big medical bills.
You buy insurance
but it's not going to cover most of the things you need.
- Trump has repeatedly said,
especially with some of the failures in Congress
to repeal the ACA, he's willing to, quote,
let Obamacare fail on its own.
Democrats are calling this outright sabotage.
- Well, I mean, he's pushing it.
He's pushing it over the cliff in some ways.
And we'll see how much,
it was showing signs of stability earlier in the year.
But he's taken all the steps that we've talked about here:
executive order, reducing cost-sharing.
Those are all things that destabilize the marketplace.
And you're going to destabilize the risk pools out there.
You're creating small risk puddles of small groups
that don't follow the ACA standards.
People are going to get sick.
They're going to drive up health care costs
because they're going to get uncompensated care
at the hospitals.
That was a billion dollars last year in Wisconsin.
That's a billion dollars that gets spread
into everybody else's bill.
Back in 2014, when the ACA first started,
it was $1.5 billion.
We've knocked it down to near half a billion dollars
in the state.
It's going to go back up again
and that spreads into everybody else's health care costs.
- Politically, a lot of people are looking at this as
who's going to own this situation?
Who can blame?
Who can profit electorally?
But in terms of people, how will this unsettle people
and what should the people be looking for right now?
- Well, I think people need to just stand firm.
There are opportunities out there for coverage.
The ACA is not going away.
There are opportunities to get coverage
either through the ACA, through BadgerCare Plus,
through other programs that might be able to help you.
It's really unfortunate because we see
parts of our government using fear and greed
to really unsettle people.
And a lot of folks out there just want to make sure
they get health care for themselves
and for their family members.
I think they understand that part of this is
we're all part of a group.
We're all part of a pool at some point.
We do have to help each other out at some points.
But if you exploit issues of greed, where people say,
"I don't want to have to pay for someone that's sick."
It's the wrong message.
It's about the community of people that we live with.
In the same way that we share our schools,
roads, and libraries.
This is health care, it's something fundamental
that we need to think bigger about.
And our politicians are pushing us to think smaller.
- All right.
We'll have to leave it there.
Bobby Peterson, ABC for Health, thanks for your time.
- You're welcome.
- People without insurance
still seek medical treatment.
They just usually do it when they're very sick
and often can't pay their bills.
In tonight's Closer Look, we're looking at the cost
of uncompensated care for Wisconsin's hospitals,
which approached a billion dollars in fiscal year 2016
and is expected to rise going forward.
Joining us now is Brian Potter, Chief Operating Officer
of the Wisconsin Hospital Association.
Thanks for your time today. - Thank you.
- Now, the latest numbers show in fiscal year 2016,
it was $994 million in uncompensated care,
half written off as charity and half as bad debt.
Is that just people who can't pay their bills
or how do you decide what goes in which category?
- Right, it is people that can't pay their bills.
Things like payer discounts, government payments,
and under-funding, those are in different categories.
So it is people that can't pay their bills.
It really falls into two categories.
One is charity care, and that tends to be people
that don't have insurance, and they also qualify
for hospitals' financial assistance policy.
Those tend to be pretty generous.
Usually up to about 200%, 250% of the federal poverty limit,
the hospital generally forgives the bill.
And then, above that they can go up to 400%, 500%,
where there's a sliding scale of write off.
That tends to be in your charity care bucket.
The bad debt piece can either be people without insurance,
who don't meet the financial assistance policy or more,
kind of more going forward, it tends to be more people that
are insured but they are either underinsured
or they have high deductible and co-pay
and those types of things, so they might have insurance,
but if they're paying first dollar on some of those things
and if they can't make their payment,
then the hospital would have to write that off as bad debt.
- The report is predicting a 4% increase for 2017,
but that was before we knew about these latest
batch of changes to the Affordable Care Act.
Should we expect that to rise beyond 4%?
- Well, you know, your guess is as good as mine.
A lot of things have changed just in the last week or so.
I think when the survey was done,
it was more about probably that bad debt piece,
about health insurance plan designs changing
and the continuing high deductible type plans,
we're seeing more and more of those.
I think that has a lot to do with it.
Some of this uncertainty with the ACA
and those types of things probably isn't factored into this.
- Some of those plans, you talk about
the association health plans that just were introduced,
that will be expanded and possibly be available
to individuals, some of those are deliberately underinsured.
People don't have as much coverage in those plans.
- That's kind of the struggle with the ACA.
I don't think the young healthies have come in
to the extent that they were hoping.
And so I guess it all kinda depends on if these new plans
get people that previously didn't have insurance
to go into those, that could be a good thing.
However, if they're taking them out of the exchanges
and into those plans, then you're just increasing
the risk pool of those that are left in the ACA.
And then you'll see increasingly higher premiums
and those types of things.
So there's really kind of a delicate balance.
This all has to work together.
Right now it seems like there's a lot of ideas
coming together that aren't really well-formulated yet.
There's still a lot of work to do.
- And before Obamacare was fully ramped up,
uncompensated care in Wisconsin was around 1.5 billion.
It's come down to under one.
But now it's creeping back up and is it safe to say
that we're going to keep rising
if there's this much uncertainty?
- Well, definitely possible.
Yeah, the ACA had a very positive impact
on uncompensated care, as you might expect.
Uncompensated care is heavily correlated
to the number of uninsured.
So as those numbers of uninsured, and I think in Wisconsin,
we saw uninsured drop by over 200,000 people.
So a great thing from an access to coverage component.
However, again, if that starts to fall apart,
uncompensated care would rise.
I think another important piece to understand is, though,
when the ACA was started,
one of the major funding mechanisms,
'cause obviously there was an increased cost,
was pretty significant Medicare cuts to fund that.
While we've seen uncompensated care come down,
we've seen Medicare losses go up.
So purely from a financial perspective of a provider,
it's been maybe slightly positive, but kind of a wash.
Obviously great for people that are able to afford coverage.
- And the overall impression is that
with uncompensated care,
other people's premiums rise to make up that difference.
Is that fair?
- Well, it's a cost just underfunded government programs
are a cost, so those need to be made up somewhere.
Milliman does a study for the
Greater Milwaukee Business Foundation on Health every year,
which looks at this impact in southeastern Wisconsin,
and I think they estimated about 30% of the cost
of commercial insurance is due to
government and uncompensated care underfunding.
That's what they estimate.
So obviously, there is a cost to that.
- One element of reducing the CSRs,
the cost-sharing reductions,
is that people on the lower end of the income levels
that have to get into the marketplace
may not be able to afford their coverage.
They may not be able to afford the deductibles within them.
Would those people typically qualify
for some of this charity care?
Are they aware it may be there?
- Yeah, possibly.
With these cost-sharing reductions,
that gets to be a little interesting
because for those that are around the 100% poverty level,
the subsidies, those are kind of baked in.
So I don't know how much that will affect the affordability
for the really low income.
Those that are a little bit higher up,
that are getting their coverage for the exchanges,
it could have a big impact.
And so again, this is all developing now.
But it's obviously going to have an impact in that,
it makes a lot of people, including providers,
really kind of concerned.
- No one likes uncertainty in any marketplace.
Do people know what to expect?
Have you been getting calls already or do you expect them?
- Well, I don't think anyone knows what to expect.
It's interesting, though, because Wisconsin,
as part of Governor Walker's plan
to reduce the uninsured rate, and it's worked quite well,
he increased Medicaid coverage to childless adults
up to 100% federal poverty level
and then used the exchange to get the additional coverage.
Like I said, that brought down the uninsured rate by,
about 200,000 people got coverage.
However because that's a major focus of Wisconsin's plan,
if the ACA starts to crumble,
obviously that's going to have to be reevaluated
because we're going to lose the gains that we gained
through this enhanced coverage.
- All right.
We have to leave it there.
We'll check in with you later.
Brian Potter from the Wisconsin Hospital Association.
Thank you. - Thank you.
- From health care to water.
A Dane County judge has revoked the permit
of eight high-capacity wells saying,
"The DNR violated the state constitution
"when issuing the permits."
In tonight's Inside Look, we are joined by Carl Sinderbrand,
the lead attorney on the case for Clean Wisconsin,
the environmental advocacy group that filed the lawsuit.
Thanks for your time today. - My pleasure.
- This lawsuit's a little convoluted.
The DNR staff initially denied the permits
for these high-capacity wells
saying they'd have an adverse impact on nearby waterways.
But then it was the attorney general's ruling
that overruled that, right?
- Close.
The DNR staff, the scientists, the hydrologists,
the engineers recognized the adverse impacts
to our navigable waters that would happen
and recommended that almost all of them be denied
and others severely constrained.
DNR sat on those applications for a couple of years.
In the interim, the attorney general issued this opinion
in May of 2016, saying, "DNR does not have the authority
"to protect public trust navigable waters,"
so they then approved them.
- That led to a lawsuit because the public trust
is enshrined in the Constitution.
- Correct, yes.
It is part of our organic law.
It was in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787,
so it predates statehood.
It was in our Constitution from the inception.
And it says that the navigable waters of the state
belong to the public and the state has a duty
to proactively protect and preserve
those public trust waters.
And in everything it does as a state
that affects those public trust waters,
those navigable waters, lakes, streams, navigable wetlands,
the state has the duty to protect them.
- Now, this is a big issue.
These high-capacity wells are being used
to refine frac sand, they're used in CAFOs,
large industrial dairy operations
and large-scale food production
and a lot of those are partisan political operations.
So this isn't going away in the future.
The legislature's constantly looking at laws for this.
- It's a struggle because there is this
overriding constitutional principle and duty
that has been reinforced by our Supreme Court unanimously
for over 100 years.
And it's our Constitution
that is the supreme law of our land.
The state legislature cannot diminish it,
cannot abrogate it.
And so, efforts by the state legislature and the governor
and DNR and now the attorney general,
to provide benefits to their campaign contributors,
big industry, at the expense of the public
just won't wash when it comes to protecting our waters.
- Now, this isn't the first time a Republican law
or in this case a ruling by a Dane County judge
has been overturned.
We're looking at Act 10, Voter ID, Right to Work.
Republicans were confident.
Every one of those cases that the Dane County ruling
would eventually reach a very conservative Supreme Court
and then rule in their favor.
Why is this time different in your opinion?
- Well, I don't know that it will be different.
I'm sure that Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce,
which represents the older, dirtier industries,
and the attorney general who is very partisan,
are going to appeal this.
But our Supreme Court, this Supreme Court,
as well as past Supreme Courts, have had a knack
for recognizing the incredible importance
of our navigable waters to our economy,
to our quality of life, to who we are,
to our identity as Wisconsinites.
Our foundation is in Pere Marquette and other trappers
coming by water, settling by water, trading by water.
Our lakes in southeastern Wisconsin used to provide ice
to the Chicago area.
We are so economically and really spiritually
tied to waters of the state.
In 2011, I had a case, the Lake Beulah case
in front of the Supreme Court,
and that was a pure public trust case
relating specifically to the duty of DNR
to protect these waters when acting on wells.
It was a unanimous decision
upholding the public trust doctrine.
So I wouldn't assume that our Supreme Court
is going to take a partisan bent on this issue.
- All right.
Well, we will keep watching as will you, Carl Sinderbrand,
thanks for your time. - You're very welcome.
Thank you.
- Now to election news
in our continuing series of interviews
with announced candidates for governor.
Tonight, we introduce you to Democrat Matt Flynn.
He's a retired lawyer and former chairman
of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
And he joins us now from Milwaukee.
Thanks for your time today.
- Good to be here, Zac.
- What sets you apart from the other Democrats
in this increasingly crowded primary?
- Well, there are a number of things, Zac.
I was the chair of this party for four years, for two terms,
retired our debt.
We elected a Democratic governor.
We elected a Democratic majority in the legislature.
I'm a Navy veteran.
A little by way of background,
my wife, Mary, and I have been married 41 years.
She's from Monroe.
She was a speech pathologist in the Germantown schools
for a long time.
We lived in Milwaukee.
And I've been not only involved in the issues in this case,
but actually organizing the Democratic Party
and being the chair, and I'm really excited about this race.
- Now, you just announced your candidacy
and then sent out an email saying you were, quote,
honored to be considered a threat
by Scott Walker and the Republicans.
They're criticizing you for your time as a lawyer
defending the Catholic Church
and the archdiocese of Milwaukee
against victims of sexual abuse by priests.
How do you respond to those attacks?
- Zac, when I first learned of those attacks,
our firm has represented the archdiocese
and the Episcopal diocese and other religious groups
for more than 50 years.
But when I first heard of it,
I was pained more than I can tell you.
We were brought in to clean it up.
I'm proud to have represented the archdiocese.
It's a good organization that does a lot of good
and most of the priests I've ever met are very fine people
who work for no money really and they do very good work.
A handful of them did terrible things [coughs] pardon me,
and they deserve to be punished.
But the truth is that since I represented the archdiocese,
there's been no recurrence
of the transfer of problem priests.
There's been no recurrence of that kind of conduct.
I can't go back in time to the '60s and '70s
and change the terrible things that happened,
but we could clean it up
and I was part of the team that cleaned it up.
- As for the bigger issues in this campaign,
what's the most important thing Wisconsin needs to do
for the education system?
- Well, there are two things.
One is we have got to strongly and unequivocally
support public schools.
This administration, first of all,
has cut by almost a billion dollars.
Then at election time, it puts a little money in
and says they're education people.
They really aren't.
We've got to stop spending public school money
on for-profit schools.
We've got to put money into public schools.
The University of Wisconsin,
my dad was on the faculty of UWM for 34 years.
They've attacked the University of Wisconsin.
Scott Walker has called the professors,
who had the no confidence vote last year,
whiners and self-serving.
And that's wrong.
The governor should stand up
for the University of Wisconsin, fully fund it,
restore statutory tenure and stick to the mission statement.
Above all, fund it.
I would be a strong advocate
for the University of Wisconsin.
- Now, I've seen that you are opposed to the Foxconn deal
that Governor Walker negotiated.
Would you try and scrap that deal or renegotiate it?
And how do we grow good-paying jobs here?
- Well, that's a multiple question.
Let me start with Foxconn.
I think that he got taken to the cleaners.
He's not competent to do a $3 billion deal
and neither is his administration.
That should have been done by private negotiators.
$3 billion off the top is $200 million a year for 15 years
and it comes before schools, it comes before health care,
roads, everything else.
So I said it should be renegotiated.
We shouldn't pay $3 billion, it's ridiculous.
And exempt a Chinese company from our water laws.
That's absolutely ridiculous.
When I'm governor, I will abide by contractual commitments,
but I'm going to scrutinize very carefully
what they've done and what they've said.
And if it comes to pass that those Chinese,
people in the company have said things that aren't so,
or that they've defrauded us, then I will respond.
- All right.
Assuming Obamacare still exists by 2019,
when you would take office, would you push the legislature
and accept the federal Medicaid expansion?
- Right, one of the most contemptible things Walker did
was turn down that Medicaid money.
And he turned down hundreds of millions of dollars.
More than 80,000 people were thrown off
that could have been covered.
Some people are going to die.
They're not going statins.
They're not going to get blood pressure medication.
And he does not care.
He doesn't care about people.
He looks at them as pawns on a chessboard.
I'd be out there lobbying
for all the Medicaid money we can get.
I think it was just wrong what the Republicans did.
- Very quickly, do you support an increase in the gas tax
for transportation projects?
- I don't support tolls.
I think we're going to have to look at reindexing,
which was abandoned back in about 2005.
Their idea about roads is neglect and debt.
Our debt service is up to
about 20% of the transportation budget.
So it's going to have to be a look,
a holistic look at all of the budget,
not just at the gas tax
and then shouldn't go up the way it has in the past.
But we're going to have to pay for the roads somehow.
I will work hard to do that.
We're not going to borrow the way he did.
- All right.
Matt Flynn, Milwaukee, thanks for your time.
- Thank you.
Good to be here.
- Finally, another example of how hope is often not enough
when it comes to addiction.
Cassandra Nygren is the daughter
of State Representative John Nygren,
who authored the HOPE Agenda to deal with opioid addiction
after this daughter became hooked on heroin.
Cassandra and her boyfriend were arrested this week
and face two counts of reckless homicide
for delivering the drugs that led to the overdose death
of a woman and her unborn child.
In other state news, the University of Wisconsin System
is overhauling the UW's two-year colleges and UW-Extension.
The proposed changes would merge the 13 two-year colleges
with nearby four-year system schools.
System President, Ray Cross, says,
"This is in response to declining enrollment
"in the two-year colleges,
"which primarily serve rural areas."
Wisconsin Public Television is part of UW-Extension.
The plan will move us under the UW System administration
here in Madison,
but this will not impact our on-air programming.
And that's all for tonight's program.
I'm Zac Schultz.
Frederica Freyberg will return next Friday.
Have a great weekend.
? ?
- Funding for Here and Now is provided, in part,
by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.