Parsing Policy: Trump’s Focus On Hospital Costs Doesn’t Go Far Enough; States That Don’t Expand Medicaid Promote Misery

Bloomberg: Trump Hospital Price Transparency Executive Order Has Limits
The Trump administration believes in the power of transparency, at least when it comes to health care. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday afternoon that calls for hospitals to tell patients how much they charge for surgeries and other services. These expenses eat up a bigger chunk of America’s health budget than the prices charged by oft-maligned drugmakers, and the hope is that giving consumers better visibility will help them shop for cheaper options. The order follows similar efforts focused on drug prices, including one that would force pharmaceutical companies to disclose the list price of medications in ads. (Max Nisen, 6/24)

Axios: Out Of Pocket Costs: The Only Health Care Prices That Matter To Consumers 
The most important detail to watch in the regulations for President Trump's executive order on price transparency for hospitals: will they require that insurers give consumers information on out of pocket costs in a timely and usable way? Why it matters: That kind of timely information will be needed in the regulations — which have yet to be written — so consumers can shop based on the costs they will actually pay. The big picture: One big reason general information on prices has only limited utility to consumers is that what they most want to know is not the price of an MRI, or a knee replacement of any other service at this hospital or that, but what they will have to pay for it themselves out of pocket under their insurance plan. Some insurance companies have tools consumers can use to figure this out, but that information is not easily available to consumers today. As a recent Kaiser Family Foundation/Los Angeles Times survey shows: 67% of the American people say it is somewhat or very difficult for them to figure out what a treatment or procedure will cost them. (Drew Altman, 6/25)

The Hill: The Swamp Strikes Back — Health-Care Edition
President Trump wants you to see upfront prices for health care. That’s why a few months ago, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently published a request for comments about whether and how to end secret prices in health care. The deadline for comments was last week, and the submissions from the industries most threatened by consumers knowing and comparing prices — hospitals and insurance companies — are an exercise in Swamp-o-nomics. (Katy Talento, 6/22)

The New York Times: Self-Inflicted Medical Misery
Over the weekend The Washington Post published a heart-rending description of a pop-up medical clinic in Cleveland, Tenn. — a temporary installation providing free care for two days on a first-come-first-served basis. Hundreds of people showed up many hours before the clinic opened, because rural America is suffering from a severe crisis of health care availability, with hospitals closing and doctors leaving. Since the focus of the report was on personal experience, not policy, it’s understandable that the article mentioned only in passing the fact that Tennessee is one of the 14 states that still refuse to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. (Krugman, 6/24)

The Hill: Give Americans In Puerto Rico The Health Care They Deserve
The disaster funding Congress recently approved for Puerto Rico will do a lot of good. Nearly two years after Hurricanes Maria and Irma wreaked havoc on the island, people here are still struggling to put their lives back together. Some of that money will be used to rebuild homes and critical pieces of our physical infrastructure; some will be used to help families put food on their tables. But this funding does nothing to alleviate the tremendous health-care disparities Americans in Puerto Rico have been facing for years — long before the hurricanes — and it's time for Congress to stop kicking the can down the road.For years, Congress has underfunded federal health programs in Puerto Rico. This underfunding is particularly harmful because Americans on the island are poorer and sicker than the average mainlander. (Jim O'Drobinak, 6/24)

The New York Times: ‘I’m Republican. I Never Thought I’d Fight For Medicaid.’
Millions of Americans fall into the Medicaid gap, earning too much to qualify for Medicaid yet too little to afford private insurance or receive subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Across the country, 4.5 million would stand to benefit from Medicaid expansion. In North Carolina, the Democratic governor is championing Medicaid expansion for 500,000 people, while Republicans in the State Legislature are blocking the measure. In this video Op-Ed, those affected argue that Medicaid expansion is necessary. If the Legislature continues to block health care access, Republicans risk votes in 2020. (Ricky Clay, Robin Jordan and Carrie McBane, 6/24)

The Hill: Thanks To Trump, The Healthcare Choice Is Yours 
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and many various versions of “Medicare for All” have something in common: they all want to limit your options: From which doctors you can see to the type of treatment you receive, and the kind of coverage you can get, both our current system and the socialized medicine proposed by the Left all depend on taking choices away from patients. Fortunately, the Trump Administration has a different idea: expanding consumer options to get the insurance, and ultimately the care, that works best for each person or family. (David Balat, 6/24)

The Washington Post: Should Contraception Be Sold Over The Counter? AOC And Ted Cruz Aren’t Actually Allies On This.
If politics makes strange bedfellows, there may be none stranger than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). The Internet was abuzz recently over their supposed meeting of the minds about potentially allowing birth control pills to be sold over the counter (OTC). How deep does this alliance on contraception really run? As it turns out, not very. Behind Ocasio-Cortez and Cruz’s Twitter exchange lies a significant divide in how they — and their respective parties — think about access to birth control, particularly when it comes to affordability. (Rachel VanSickle-Ward and Wallsten, 6/24)