Medicaid

Mandatory Vaccines for Health Care Workers Might Upend Nurses’ Training

Kaitlyn Hevner expects to complete a 15-month accelerated nursing program at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville in December. For her clinical training this fall, she’s working 12-hour shifts on weekends with medical-surgical patients at a hospital.

But Hevner and nursing students like her who refuse to get vaccinated against covid-19 are in an increasingly precarious position. Their stance may put their required clinical training and, eventually, their nursing careers at risk.

In early September, the Biden administration announced that workers at health care facilities, including hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, would be required to receive covid vaccines. Although details of the federal rule won’t be released until October, some experts predict that student nurses doing clinical training at such sites will have to be vaccinated, too.

Groups representing the nursing profession say “students should be vaccinated when clinical facilities require it” to complete their clinical training. In a policy brief released Monday, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and eight other nurse organizations suggested that students who refuse to be vaccinated and who don’t qualify for an exception because of their religious beliefs or medical issues may be disenrolled from their nursing program or be unable to graduate because they cannot fulfill the clinical requirements.

“We can’t have students in the workplace that can expose patients to a serious illness,” said Maryann Alexander, chief officer for nursing regulation at the national council. “Students can refuse the vaccine, but those who are not exempt maybe should be told that this is not the time to be in a nursing program.”

“You’re going to go into practice and you’re going to be very limited in your jobs if you’re not going to get that vaccine,” Alexander said.

Kaitlyn Hevner, a nursing student at the University of North Florida, has opted not to get vaccinated against covid even though many medical facilities require it. She questions whether “we give up our own religious rights and our own self-determination just because we work in a health care setting.” (Robert Working)

Hevner, 35, set to finish her clinical training in early October, said she doesn’t feel it’s acceptable to benefit from a vaccine that was developed using fetal cells obtained through abortion, which she opposes. (Development of the Johnson & Johnson covid vaccine involved a cell line from an abortion; the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines were not developed with fetal cell lines, but some testing of the vaccines reportedly involved fetal cells, researchers say. Many religious leaders, however, support vaccination against covid.)

With vaccines for nursing students still optional in many health care settings, nursing educators are scrambling to place unvaccinated students in health care facilities that will accept them.

Down the coast from Jacksonville in Fort Pierce, Florida, 329 students are in the two-year associate degree nursing program at Indian River State College, said Roseann Maresca, an assistant professor who teaches third-semester students and coordinates their clinical training. Only 150 of them are vaccinated against covid, she said.

Not all of the eight medical facilities that have contracts with the school require student nurses to be vaccinated.

“It’s been a nightmare trying to move students around this semester” to match them with facilities depending on their vaccination status, Maresca said.

Commonly, health care facilities have long required employees to be vaccinated against various illnesses such as influenza and hepatitis B. The pandemic has added new urgency to these requirements. According to a September tally by FierceHealthcare, more than 170 health systems mandate covid vaccines for their workforces.

In May, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made it clear that under federal law employers can mandate covid vaccinations as long as they allow workers to claim religious and medical exemptions.

Under the Biden administration’s covid plan, roughly 50,000 health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payments must require workers to be vaccinated. Until the administration releases its draft rule in October, it is unclear how nursing students assigned to health care sites for clinical training will be treated.

But the federal rule published in August that lays out regulations for government hospital payments in 2022 offers clues. It defined health care personnel that should be vaccinated as employees, licensed independent contractors and adult students/trainees and volunteers, said Colin Milligan, director of media relations at the American Hospital Association.

In addition to staff members, the Biden plan says mandates will apply to “individuals providing services under arrangements” at health care sites.

A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to clarify who would be covered by the Biden plan, noting the agency is still writing the rules.

Nonetheless, vaccination mandates threaten to derail the training of a relatively small proportion of nursing students. A recent survey by the National Student Nurses’ Association reported that 86% of nursing students and 85% of new nursing graduates who responded to an online survey said they had been or planned to be vaccinated against covid.

But the results varied widely by state, from 100% in New Hampshire and Vermont on the high end to 63% in Oklahoma, 74% in Kentucky and 76% in Florida on the low end. The survey had 7,501 respondents.

Students who don’t want to be vaccinated are asking schools to offer them alternatives to on-site clinical training. They suggest using life-size computer-controlled mannequins or computer-based simulations using avatars, said Marcia Gardner, dean of the nursing school at Molloy College in Rockville Centre, New York.

Last year, when the pandemic led hospitals to close their doors to students, many nursing programs increased simulated clinical training to give nursing students some sort of clinical experience.

But that’s no substitute for working with real patients in a health care setting, educators say. State nursing boards permit simulated clinical study to varying degrees, but none allow such instruction to exceed 50% of clinical training, said Alexander. A multisite study found that nursing students could do up to half their clinical training using simulation with no negative impact on competency.

The policy brief by the council of state nursing boards states that nursing education programs “are not obligated to provide substitute or alternate clinical experiences based on a student’s request or vaccine preference.”

As more nursing students become vaccinated, the issue will grow less acute. And if the Biden plan requires nursing students to be vaccinated to work in hospitals, the number of holdouts is likely to further shrink.

Hevner, the University of North Florida student, said she’s not opposed to vaccines in general and would consider getting a covid vaccine in the future if she could be assured it wasn’t created using aborted fetal cells. She filed paperwork with the college to get a religious exemption from vaccine requirements. It turned out she didn’t need one because Orange Park Medical Center, where she is doing her clinical training, doesn’t require staffers or nursing students to be vaccinated against covid “at this time,” said Carrie Turansky, director of public relations and communications for the medical center, in Orange Park, Florida.

Although Hevner opposes getting the vaccine, “I take protecting my patients and protecting myself very seriously,” she said. She gets tested weekly for covid and always wears an N95 mask in a clinical setting, among other precautions, she said. “But I would ask: Do we give up our own religious rights and our own self-determination just because we work in a health care setting?”

She hopes the profession can accommodate people like her.

“I’m concerned because we’re in such a divisive place,” she said. But she is eager to find a middle ground because, she said, “I think I would make a really great nurse.”

Source

As Democrats Bicker Over Massive Spending Plan, Here’s What’s at Stake for Medicaid

Hours after the Supreme Court in 2012 narrowly upheld the Affordable Care Act but rejected making Medicaid expansion mandatory for states, Obama administration officials laughed when asked whether that would pose a problem.

In a White House briefing, top advisers to President Barack Obama told reporters states would be foolish to turn away billions in federal funding to help residents lacking the security of health insurance.

Flash-forward nearly a decade, and it’s clear to see the consequences of that ruling.

Today, 12 Republican-controlled states have yet to adopt the Medicaid expansion, leaving 2.2 million low-income adult residents uninsured.

Tired of waiting for Republican state lawmakers, congressional Democrats are moving to close the Medicaid coverage gap as they forge a package of new domestic spending that could run as high as $3.5 trillion over 10 years and would significantly enhance other federal health programs. But the cost is raising concerns within the party, and the competition to get initiatives in the package is fierce.

With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, health experts say this could be the only time such a fix to the “Medicaid gap” will be possible for many years.

“This is a last best chance to do this,” said Judith Solomon, a senior fellow with the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Here are six things to know about what’s at stake for Medicaid.

1. Who would be helped?

The adults caught in the coverage gap have incomes that are too high for them to qualify under their states’ tight eligibility rules that predated the 2010 health law but are below the federal poverty level ($12,880 a year for an individual). When setting up the ACA, Congress expected that people making less than the poverty guideline would be covered by Medicaid, so the law provides no subsidies for coverage on the ACA marketplaces.

About 59% of adults in the coverage gap are people of color, according to a KFF analysis. Nearly two-thirds live in a household with at least one worker.

The states that have not expanded Medicaid are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

About three-quarters of those in the coverage gap live in four states: Texas (35%), Florida (19%), Georgia (12%) and North Carolina (10%).

2. Why haven’t states expanded?

Republicans in these states have listed a litany of reasons. They assert that Medicaid, a state-federal program launched in 1966 that today covers 1 in 4 Americans, is a broken system that doesn’t improve health, despite dozens of studies to the contrary. Or they say working adults don’t deserve government help with health insurance. They also complain it’s too expensive for states to put up their 10% share (the federal government pays the rest), and they don’t trust Congress will keep up its funding promises for expansion states.

Each time Medicaid expansion has made it onto a ballot in a Republican-majority state, it has passed — most recently in 2020 in Oklahoma and Missouri.

3. How would the Democrats’ plan work?

The House plan has two phases. Under the bill passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee, starting in 2022, people in the coverage gap with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level (about $17,774 for an individual) would be eligible for subsidies to buy coverage on the marketplace.

Enrollees wouldn’t pay a monthly premium because the tax credits would be enough to cover the full cost, according to an analysis by Solomon. There would be no deductibles to meet and only minimal copays, like most state Medicaid programs.

Help not typically available under the ACA would be offered. For example, Solomon’s analysis notes, low-paid workers wouldn’t be barred from enrolling in marketplace plans because they have an offer of employer coverage. In addition, people could enroll at any time during the year, not just during open enrollment season in late fall/early winter.

Phase two would begin in 2025. That’s when people in the coverage gap would transition to a federally operated Medicaid program run by managed-care plans and third-party administrators.

Enrollees would not pay any cost sharing in the federal Medicaid plan.

4. Would the coverage be as good as if the states adopted expansion?

It would be very close, Solomon said. The new plan would include coverage for all services defined by the law as “essential” health benefits, such as hospital services and prescription drugs.

One difference is coverage for nonemergency transportation services would not start until 2024. In addition, during those early years of the plan, some long-term services for medically frail people typically covered under Medicaid would not be included and some screening and treatment services for 19- and 20-year-olds would not be offered.

The first phase would also not provide retroactive coverage for the three months prior to application. Medicaid today covers medical expenses incurred in the three months before an individual applies if the person is found to have been eligible during those months.

One potential benefit of using the marketplace plans is they could have broader networks of doctors than those associated with Medicaid programs.

5. How much would it cost?

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet revealed estimates, although the price tag would likely be in the billions of dollars.

The federal cost for covering people by helping them buy marketplace plans is higher than it would be if the states had expanded Medicaid. That’s because marketplace plans generally pay higher fees to doctors and hospitals, making them more costly, Solomon explained.

6. Could states that have already expanded Medicaid rescind that policy and require residents to get coverage under the new setup?

The bill offers incentives for states to keep their current Medicaid options. If a state opts to stop spending funds on the Medicaid expansion, it may have to pay a penalty based on the number of enrollees that move to the federal program, potentially amounting to millions of dollars.

Source

Death in Dallas: One Family’s Experience in the Medicaid Gap

For years, Millicent McKinnon of Dallas went without health insurance. She was one of roughly 1 million Texans who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid in the state but too little to buy their own insurance. That is, until she died in 2019. She was 64 and had been unable to find consistent care for her breast cancer.

Lorraine Birabil, McKinnon’s daughter-in-law, said she is still grieving that loss.

“She was such a vibrant woman,” she said. “Just always full of energy and joy.”

Health insurance for roughly 2.2 million Americans is on the table as Congress considers a spending bill that could be as high as $3.5 trillion over the next decade.

This plan would extend health coverage to residents of the 12 states that have yet to expand Medicaid to their working poor through the Affordable Care Act. In those states, people who earn too little to qualify for Medicaid — but who can’t afford to buy insurance in the individual marketplace — are left in what’s referred to as the Medicaid gap. Like McKinnon, most of these people work in jobs that don’t offer affordable health insurance.

If Congress approves the measure, those individuals would have access to a health plan through the federal government.

This could be a lifeline to some of the 17.5% of Texans who are uninsured, the highest rate in the country.

McKinnon was a descendant of runaway slaves who settled in Chicago. As an adult, she moved to Dallas and worked in health care her entire career. Her last job was as a home health aide, taking care of the elderly and people with disabilities. Birabil said she didn’t make a lot of money, though, and didn’t get health insurance.

And that’s why, when McKinnon started feeling sick, she put off going to the doctor.

“She didn’t have the coverage,” said Birabil, a lawyer who served briefly in the Texas House of Representatives. “She was doing everything she could do to live a healthy lifestyle. And so, when she realized that something was wrong and she went to find out what it was, it turned out that it was stage 4 breast cancer.”

In the year after her diagnosis, she bounced around hospitals. Doctors would stabilize her and send her home. Without coverage, consistent treatment was hard to find. Her family looked for insurance but found nothing.

All they could do in the end was be there as she slowly died.

“At the time that we found out, you know, we were also pregnant,” Birabil said. “And she kept saying, ‘I just want to meet my grandbaby.’ And she didn’t make it.”

A month before her granddaughter was born, McKinnon died. She was months away from getting Medicare.

Birabil said the health care system her mother-in-law spent her life working in ultimately failed her.

Laura Guerra-Cardus, deputy director of the Children’s Defense Fund in Texas, said advocates like her have been pleading with state lawmakers for years to cover uninsured Texans.

“But purely political opposition from our highest leaders, the governor and the lieutenant governor,” she said, “is enough to block progress on an issue that is a basic right.”

That’s why Guerra-Cardus, and other health care advocates across the country, are now looking to President Joe Biden and Congress to fix this problem. The Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending bill — Biden’s “human infrastructure” bill — includes money to cover the uninsured via the health insurance marketplace and state Medicaid programs.

Most of those who would benefit are people of color in the South.

“We are asking them to choose to make America a country that does not block health care from anybody,” Guerra-Cardus said.

The racial disparity is stark in Texas, where about 70% of people in the coverage gap are Latino or Black.

Jesse Cross-Call with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said this is the first time since the Affordable Care Act went into effect that Congress may have enough votes to address this issue.

“This really is the unfinished work of the ACA to ensure that everybody in this country who is poor or of moderate incomes has access to affordable health care coverage,” he said.

But this insurance lifeline is competing for money and attention with other priorities.

Politico reported that this plan could be curtailed as Democrats negotiate a trimmed-down version of the spending bill.

For example, some lawmakers have suggested they would be willing to scale back health coverage for people in the Medicaid gap to just five years.

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), chair of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said in a statement Tuesday that Congress “must permanently close this coverage gap” so people in the 12 Republican-controlled states are never again denied health care.

“Closing the coverage gap means getting access to a family physician, essential medicines and other health care for [millions] who have been left out and left behind for more than a decade,” he said.

Some Democrats have also raised political concerns that extending coverage in non-expansion states would reward the Republican leaders in those states that have blocked Medicaid expansion for years.

Guerra-Cardus said that argument “is so far from the point” when it comes to why Congress should address the coverage gap.

“This is about people who are dying and suffering from preventable, treatable illnesses in the 21st century in our rich country,” she said.

In every state where Medicaid expansion has been put on a ballot, it has been approved by voters, most recently in Oklahoma and Missouri.

This story is part of a partnership that includes KUTNPR and KHN.

Source