With hospitals at risk, Mass. eyes lifeline for broke insurer covering 460K public employees
Editor's note: Story was updated Thursday afternoon to include a statement from GIC.
Amid fears of 'serious financial consequences,' Massachusetts is working to create a lifeline for a Massachusetts agency that oversees health insurance for 460,000 public employees, retirees and their dependents after it could not continue to pay providers.
In January, state Group Insurance Commission (GIC) Executive Director Matthew Veno had flagged the agency's budget shortfalls as a concern.
'This is the largest variance that we've seen in at least a decade, and this is consistent across all of our plans, and is driven primarily by rising provider prices and a couple of other topics,' he said at the time. 'We don't know where this is going to head. My concern is that it is a persistent and steady trend going forward.'
Then in April, Veno said rising provider prices and increased utilization of prescription benefits, including for GLP-1 weight loss drugs, had caused the commission to run an average $20 million monthly deficit this fiscal year.
Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association (MHA) said it was 'unacceptable' for the insurance agency to have a lack of backup options and claims the disruption in payments 'will undoubtedly result in serious financial consequences.'
Read more: Mass. health insurance companies directed to limit growth of deductibles, copays
Mercy Medical Center in Springfield said it 'is not in a financial position to absorb budget shortfalls of the state Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission.'
'While we appreciate the financial situation of the GIC, we join them in advocating for funding to resolve its budget deficiency that will not further exacerbate the financial condition of healthcare providers,' the statement continued.
But the Massachusetts Legislature didn't act before GIC officially ran out of money on Monday. All claims have remained pending since then.
The commission had been counting on a $237 million appropriation request before the Legislature.
The appropriation was the largest single request in a $756 million short-term spending bill Gov. Maura Healey filed in early April.
However, in an email sent to providers earlier this month, the GIC warned that it 'does not know how soon the legislature will pass the bill and when the GIC will receive the requested funds.'
The claims will remain pending until GIC receives the additional funds or until July 1.
This week, Massachusetts began moving forward on the requested funds.
The House advanced a $240 supplemental budget for the agency on Monday. And the Senate passed it on Thursday.
'Ensuring that the hundreds of thousands of public employees and their loved ones have access to health insurance is one of our most important responsibilities,' said Senate President Karen E. Spilka, D-Middlesex/Norfolk.
Now it is set for Healey's desk.
'The GIC is grateful to the House and Senate for passing the Governor's supplemental budget request. We look forward to lifting the hold on claims payments and promptly resuming payment of pended claims following the Governor's signature of the legislation,' GIC said in a statement to MassLive. 'We appreciate the patience of plans and providers as we worked toward resolution in a way that would minimally impact our members.'
But this isn't unique to GIC.
'The Group Insurance Commission is facing a challenge that is not unique to any insurer, as pharmaceutical usage is going up and the costs of drugs are rising at an unsustainable rate,' said Senator Cindy F. Friedman, D-4th Middlesex, the Senate's chair of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Health Care Financing.
'The Senate is actively working on measures to address this larger issue, as well as other cost drivers throughout the health care system, to relieve the pressure on insurers and the premiums that residents in the Commonwealth face,' the Arlington lawmaker continued. 'As we work towards the end goal of stabilizing health care costs, this supplemental funding for the GIC will ensure that our state employees stay covered and healthy.'
Mass. health insurance companies directed to limit growth of deductibles, copays
'Unacceptable': Health insurer for 460K Mass. public workers goes broke without backup plan
Insurance program for 460,000 Mass. residents runs out of money Monday
Read the original article on MassLive.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Study: Real-world results of GLP-1 drugs don't match trials
Real-world results for blockbuster weight-loss meds like Ozempic, Wegovy and Zepbound aren't as impressive as those promised by the drugs' clinical trials, a new study says. People taking such GLP-1 drugs lost just under 9% of their body weight on average after a year, researchers reported Tuesday in the journal Obesity. That's far less than the 15% to 21% body weight reduction promised by the clinical trials that led to the approval of Wegovy (semaglutide) and Zepbound (tirzepatide) for weight loss, researchers said. "Patients treated for obesity with semaglutide or trizepatide lost less weight on average in a regular clinical setting compared to what is observed in randomized clinical trial," lead investigator Hamlet Gasoyan said in a news release. He is a researcher at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Value-Based Care Research. People taking the drugs in real-world settings appear to be more likely to quit taking the meds, researchers said. They also might be prescribed lower dosages in clinical practice than were used in the drug trials. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs mimic the GLP-1 hormone, which helps control insulin and blood sugar levels, decreases appetite and slows digestion of food. For this study, researchers tracked nearly 7,900 patients being treated by the Cleveland Clinic for severe obesity, of whom about 6,100 were prescribed semaglutide and the rest tirzepatide. Average body weight loss after a year was nearly 9% for the whole group, results show. But weight loss varied based on when a person stopped taking the drugs, researchers found. Average weight loss was under 4% for those who stopped treatment early, versus nearly 7% or those who stopped later on, the study says. Those who stayed on their medications lost an average 12% body weight. Results also show that more than 4 in 5 (81%) of patients were prescribed a low maintenance dose of their GLP-1 drug, and that made a difference as well. People who stayed on their meds and received high doses lost nearly 14% of their body weight with semaglutide and 18% with tirzepatide. "Our findings about the real-world use patterns of these medications and associated clinical outcomes could inform the decisions of health care providers and their patients on the role of treatment discontinuation and maintenance dosage in achieving clinically meaningful weight reductions," Gasoyan said. Overall, patients had higher odds of losing 10% or more of their body weight after a year if they remained on their meds, were prescribed a high dosage, were taking tirzepatide rather than semaglutide, and were female, results show. The cost of the drugs and problems were insurance were a common reason for patients stopping GLP-1 treatment, along with side effects and medication shortages, researchers said. Staying on the GLP-1 meds particularly helped the nearly 17% of patients who had prediabetes, a condition in which elevated blood sugar levels increase a person's risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. About 68% of those who stuck with their treatment wound up with normal blood sugar levels, compared with 41% who stopped taking the drugs later in the study and 33% who stopped earlier. "Type 2 diabetes is one of the most common complications of obesity, so diabetes prevention is very important," Gasoyan said. "This study highlights that treatment discontinuation, especially early, negatively affects both weight and glycemic control outcomes." A follow-up study is in the works to better track why patients stop taking their GLP-1 drugs, researchers said. More information Harvard Medical School has more on GLP-1 drugs. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Lawmakers urge Trump administration to clamp down on illicit GLP-1 sales
A bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers is calling on the Trump administration to address the continued sale of illicit, compounded GLP-1 products, warning that consumers may be accessing these drugs without knowing the product could be fraudulent. North Carolina Reps. Brad Knott (R) and Deborah Ross (D) wrote to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, imploring them to end the sale of 'counterfeit, research-grade and illegal copycats' of popular GLP-1 medications. When the commercial, branded versions of tirzepatide and semaglutide were declared to no longer be in shortage, compounding pharmacies were disallowed from continuing to sell compounded versions of those drugs. While telehealth companies have transitioned away from compounded versions, state officials have warned that 'copycat' drugs have proliferated in the months since the shortages ended. Earlier this year, the National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter to the FDA to warn that 'counterfeit GLP-1 drugs have infiltrated the U.S. supply chain from China, Turkey, India, and other foreign sources.' According to the attorneys general, online retailers sell the active ingredient for the GLP-1s under the claim that they're 'for research purposes only' or 'not for human consumption' while still marketing them to consumers on social media. The FDA issued a warning in April, telling consumers to not take counterfeit Ozempic. The drug's manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, had alerted the agency that several hundred units of counterfeit product had entered the U.S. supply chain. At the time, the FDA said it was aware of six adverse events associated with the counterfeit products. Though the FBI issued a public service warning soon after the letter from the attorneys general was sent, Knott and Ross said raising public awareness wasn't enough. 'FDA has received hundreds of reports of adverse events, even some resulting in the hospitalization and death of patients who used illicit GLP-1s,' they wrote. 'This is likely a significant underreporting of adverse events experienced by patients because federal law does not require state-licensed pharmacies that are not outsourcing facilities to submit adverse events to FDA.' The lawmakers asked that the Trump Cabinet members fully use 'the legal tools at your discretion' to further detect illicit and enforce U.S. drug standards. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) sent his own letter to Cabinet members, calling for enhanced collaboration among agencies like FDA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Justice Department in order to stop the counterfeit products from reaching the supply chain in the first place. The Hill has reached out to the agencies named in the letter for comment.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
4 ways Trump's ‘one big beautiful bill' would undermine access to Obamacare
Major changes could be in store for the more than 24 million people with health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including how and when they can enroll, the paperwork required, and, crucially, the premiums they pay. A driver behind these changes is the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the name given to spending and tax legislation designed to advance the policy agenda of President Donald Trump. It passed the House on May 22 and is pending in the Senate. The changes also would come from regulations the Trump administration proposed in March and the potential expiration of larger premium subsidies put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions of people might drop or lose coverage by 2034 as a result, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Combined, the moves by Trump and his allies could 'devastate access' to ACA plans, said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O'Neill Institute, a health policy research group at Georgetown University. States that run their own Obamacare marketplaces and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners have also raised concerns about added costs and reduced access. But House Republicans and some conservative think tanks say the ACA needs revamping to rein in fraud, part of which they pin on certain Biden administration changes the measures would undo. Senate Republicans must now weigh whether to include the House's proposals in their own bill, with the aim of getting it through the chamber by July 4. Here are four key ways Trump's policies could undermine Obamacare enrollment and coverage. The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which runs more than 1,000 pages, would create paperwork requirements that could delay access to tax credits for some enrollees, potentially raising the cost of their insurance. More than 90% of ACA enrollees receive tax credits to defray monthly premiums for their coverage. There are two key provisions for them to watch. One would end automatic reenrollment for most ACA policyholders each year. More than 10 million people were automatically reenrolled in their coverage for the 2025 plan year, with their eligibility for tax credits confirmed via a system that allows ACA marketplaces to check government or other data sources. The House bill would instead require every new or returning policyholder each year to provide information on income, household size, immigration status, and other factors, starting in 2028. If they don't, they won't get a premium tax credit, which could put the price of coverage out of reach. Louisiana Legislature targets out-of-state doctors who provide abortion pills 'Everyone who wants to either purchase or renew a marketplace plan will have to come with a shoebox filled with documents, scan in and upload them or mail them in, and sit and wait while someone reviews and confirms them,' said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. She and other policy experts fear that many consumers will become uninsured because they don't understand the requirements or find them burdensome. If too many young and healthy people, for example, decide it's not worth the hassle, that could leave more older and sicker people for ACA insurers to cover — potentially raising premiums for everyone. But supporters of the House bill say the current approach needs changing because it is vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. 'This would ensure that enrollees need to return to the exchange to update their information and obtain an updated eligibility determination for a subsidy — best protecting the public against excess subsidies paid to insurers that can never be recovered,' the conservative Paragon Institute wrote in an April letter to top Department of Health and Human Services officials. Today, people who experience life changes — losing a job, getting married or divorced, or having a baby, for instance — are considered provisionally eligible for tax credits to reduce their premiums if they sign up or change their ACA plans. That means they would be eligible to receive these subsidies for at least 90 days while their applications are checked against government data or other sources, or marketplaces follow up with requests for additional information. The House bill would end that, requiring documentation before receiving tax credits. That could create particular hardship for new parents, who can't confirm that babies are eligible for premium subsidies until they receive Social Security numbers weeks after they're born. Policy experts following the debate 'did not expect the end to provisional eligibility,' Corlette said. 'I don't know what the reaction in the Senate will be, as I'm not sure everyone understands the full implications of these provisions because they are so new.' It can take up to six weeks for the Social Security Administration to process a number for a newborn, and an additional two weeks for parents to get the card, according to a white paper that analyzed provisions of the House bill and was co-authored by Jason Levitis, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, and Christen Linke Young, a visiting fellow with Brookings' Center on Health Policy. Without a Social Security number, any application to add a newborn to an ACA policy would automatically generate a hold on premium tax credits for that family, they wrote — increasing their out-of-pocket costs, at least temporarily. 'It puts consumers on the hook for any delays the marketplace is taking,' while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the ACA marketplaces, 'is cutting staff and adding a lot more paperwork to burden the staff they have,' Levitis said. Provisions in the House bill that would require ACA enrollees to provide information each year that they reenroll — or when seeking to add or change a policy due to a life circumstance — would increase the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in 2034, according to the latest CBO estimate. The House bill would turn into law a Trump proposal to shorten the ACA open enrollment period. The start date would continue to be Nov. 1. But the window would be shortened by about a month, with an end date of Dec. 15. This affects people in states that use the federal marketplace as well as the 19 states and the District of Columbia that run their own, most of which offer open enrollment into at least mid-January. Also, as soon as the end of this year, a special enrollment period the Biden administration created would be done away with. It allowed people with lower incomes — those who earn up to 1.5 times the 2024 federal poverty level, or about $38,730 for a family of three — to sign up anytime during the year. Critics, including the Paragon Institute, argue that this enrollment opening led to fraud, partly blaming it for a steep increase last year in instances of insurance agents seeking commissions by enrolling or switching consumers into plans without their consent, or fudging their incomes to qualify them for tax credits so large they paid no monthly premiums at all. But supporters — including some states that run their own ACA exchange — say there are other ways to address fraud. 'We anticipate that much of the improper activity can be prevented by security and integrity upgrades to the federal marketplace, which we understand the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is implementing,' the National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote in a May 29 letter to congressional leaders. The reason? Enhanced tax credits created during the pandemic expire at the end of the year. The House bill doesn't extend them. Those more generous payments are credited with helping double ACA enrollment since 2020. The CBO estimates that extending the subsidies would cost $335 billion over 10 years. The House bill instead funds an extension of Trump's tax cuts, which largely benefit wealthier families. If the enhanced credits are allowed to expire, not only would premium subsidies be smaller for many people, but there would also be an abrupt eligibility cutoff — an income cliff — for households above four times the federal poverty rate, or about $103,280 for a family of three for this plan year. Taking into account the smaller subsidies and the cliff, KFF estimates a national average premium increase of 75% for enrollees if the enhanced subsidies expire. The CBO expects that about 4.2 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF and subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
