Category Archives: ACA

KHN’s ‘What The Health?’: The Affordable Care Act Turns 10

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://khn.org/news/khn-podcast-what-the-health-the-affordable-care-act-turns-10/

Image result for KHN’s ‘What The Health?’: The Affordable Care Act Turns 10

Can’t see the audio player? Click here to listen on SoundCloud.

The past decade for the health law has been filled with controversy and several near-death experiences. But the law also brought health coverage to millions of Americans and laid the groundwork for a shift to a health system that pays for quality rather than quantity.

Yet the future of the law remains in doubt. Many progressive Democrats would like to scrap it in favor of a “Medicare for All” system that would be fully financed by the federal government. Republicans would still like to repeal or substantially alter it. And the Supreme Court recently accepted another case that could invalidate the law in its entirety.

In this special episode of KHN’s “What the Health?” host Julie Rovner interviews Kathleen Sebelius, who was secretary of Health and Human Services during the development, passage and implementation of the health law.

Then Rovner, Joanne Kenen of Politico and Mary Agnes Carey of Kaiser Health News, who have all covered the law from the start, discuss the ACA’s past, present and future.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • Although the creation of the ACA is often attributed to the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress at the time, work on a health care plan actually began well before then with small-group meetings among stakeholders, congressional hearings across the country and efforts by Sen. Ted Kennedy to galvanize interest. Much of those interactions were bipartisan and included industry leaders too.
  • Despite the vehement Republican opposition to the ACA and its many critical junctures (the death of Kennedy and his replacement by Republican Scott Brown; two tight Supreme Court decisions; and the calamitous debut of the marketplace website, among other issues), the law has proved popular. When Republicans gained control of the White House and Congress, their efforts to repeal the law helped focus consumers’ interest on the law and safeguard it.
  • How will the November election affect the law? If President Donald Trump is reelected, he is unlikely to renew the effort to repeal the law, but that doesn’t mean the assault on the law is over. Efforts to change the ACA could continue through the courts and through administrative rulemaking.
  • If a Democrat is elected, modifications to the law are generally expected to be incremental and perhaps deal with changes such as expanding the number of people getting subsidies and fix some glitches in the law.

 

 

 

Ten Years After: The ACA’s Success in Five Charts

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Mortality, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

Ten Years After: The ACA’s Success in Five Charts

 

 

 

Experts agree that Trump’s coronavirus response was poor, but the US was ill-prepared in the first place

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Life Expectancy, Market Consolidation, Market Failure, Market Power, Mortality, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Sick Leave, Surprise Bills, Underinsured, Uninsured, Vaccination, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/experts-agree-that-trumps-coronavirus-response-was-poor-but-the-us-was-ill-prepared-in-the-first-place-133674?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%2017%202020%20-%201565314971&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%2017%202020%20-%201565314971+Version+A+CID_6ce2ffeb273f535ccdcb368c4649a7ee&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Experts%20agree%20that%20Trumps%20coronavirus%20response%20was%20poor%20but%20the%20US%20was%20ill-prepared%20in%20the%20first%20place

As the coronavirus pandemic exerts a tighter grip on the nation, critics of the Trump administration have repeatedly highlighted the administration’s changes to the nation’s pandemic response team in 2018 as a major contributor to the current crisis. This combines with a hiring freeze at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, leaving hundreds of positions unfilled. The administration also has repeatedly sought to reduce CDC funding by billions of dollars. Experts agree that the slow and uncoordinated response has been inadequate and has likely failed to mitigate the coming widespread outbreak in the U.S.

As a health policy expert, I agree with this assessment. However, it is also important to acknowledge that we have underfunded our public health system for decades, perpetuated a poorly working health care system and failed to bring our social safety nets in line with other developed nations. As a result, I expect significant repercussions for the country, much of which will disproportionately fall on those who can least afford it.

Decades of underfunding

Spending on public health has historically proven to be one of humanity’s best investments. Indeed, some of the largest increases in life expectancy have come as the direct result of public health interventions, such as sanitation improvements and vaccinations.

Even today, return on investments for public health spending is substantial and tends to significantly outweigh many medical interventions. For example, one study found that every US$10 per person spent by local health departments reduces infectious disease morbidity by 7.4%.

However, despite their importance to national well-being, public health expenditures have been neglected at all levels. Since 2008, for example, local health departments have lost more than 55,000 staff. By 2016, only about 133,000 full-time equivalent staff remained. State funding for public health was lower in 2016-2017 than in 2008-2009. And the CDC’s prevention and public health budget has been flat and significantly underfunded for years. Overall, of the more than $3.5 trillion the U.S. spends annually on health care, a meager 2.5% goes to public health.

Not surprisingly, the nation has experienced a number of outbreaks of easily preventable diseases. Currently, we are in the middle of significant outbreaks of hepatitis A (more than 31,000 cases), syphilis (more than 35,000 cases), gonorrhea (more than 580,000 cases) and chlamydia (more than 1,750,000 cases). Our failure to contain known diseases bodes ill for our ability to rein in the emerging coronavirus pandemic.

Failures of health care systems

Yet while we have underinvested in public health, we have been spending massive and growing amounts of money on our medical care system. Indeed, we are spending more than any other country for a system that is significantly underperforming.

To make things worse, it is also highly inequitable. Yet, the system is highly profitable for all players involved. And to maximize income, both for- and nonprofits have consistently pushed for greater privatization and the elimination of competitors.

As a result, thousands of public and private hospitals deemed “inefficient” because of unfilled beds have closed. This eliminated a significant cushion in the system to buffer spikes in demand.

At any given time, this decrease in capacity does not pose much of a problem for the nation. Yet in the middle of a global pandemic, communities will face significant challenges without this surge capacity. If the outbreak mirrors anything close to what we have seen in other countries, “there could be almost six seriously ill patients for every existing hospital bed.” A worst-case scenario from the same study puts the number at 17 to 1. To make things worse, there will likely be a particular shortage of unoccupied intensive care beds.

Of course, the lack of overall hospitals beds is not the most pressing issue. Hospitals also lack the levels of staffing and supplies needed to cope with a mass influx of patients. However, the lack of ventilators might prove the most daunting challenge.

Limits of the overall social safety net

While the U.S. spends trillions of dollars each year on medical care, our social safety net has increasingly come under strain. Even after the Affordable Care Act, almost 30 million Americans do not have health insurance coverage. Many others are struggling with high out-of-pocket payments.

To make things worse, spending on social programs, outside of those protecting the elderly, has been shrinking, and is significantly smaller than in other developed nations. Moreover, public assistance is highly uneven and differs significantly from state to state.

And of course, the U.S. heavily relies on private entities, mostly employers, to offer benefits taken for granted in other developed countries, including paid sick leave and child care. This arrangement leaves 1 in 4 American workers without paid sick leave, resulting in highly inequitable coverage. As a result, many low-income families struggle to make ends meet even when times are good.

Can the US adapt?

I believe that the limitations of the U.S. public health response and a potentially overwhelmed medical care system are likely going to be exacerbated by the blatant limitations of the U.S. welfare state. However, after weathering the current storm, I expect us to go back to business as usual relatively quickly. After all, that’s what happened after every previous pandemic, such as H1N1 in 2009 or even the 1918 flu epidemic.

The problems are in the incentive structure for elected officials. I expect that policymakers will remain hesitant to invest in public health, let alone revamp our safety net. While the costs are high, particularly for the latter, there are no buildings to be named, and no quick victories to be had. The few advocates for greater investments lack resources compared to the trillion-dollar interests from the medical sector.

Yet, if altruism is not enough, we should keep reminding policymakers that outbreaks of communicable diseases pose tremendous challenges for local health care systems and communities. They also create remarkable societal costs. The coronavirus serves as a stark reminder.

 

 

Taking a look at the Biden healthcare plan

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Competition, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Public Option, Surprise Bills, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/325cd862d7a7/the-weekly-gist-march-13-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

 

Now that the Democratic primary campaign has produced a clear front runner, it’s worth examining Joe Biden’s healthcare plan, which aims to expand the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by increasing access and affordability. As the graphic above highlights, former Vice President Biden has a broad—if at this point, still fairly high-level—proposal that includes a Medicare-like public option along with a variety of other ACA tweaks that aim to offer consumers more options and lower their healthcare costs.

These include allowing individuals in states without Medicaid expansion to join the pubic option premium-free, providing unlimited subsidy eligibility, and limiting drug price increases to the level of consumer inflation.

An independent analysis projects Biden’s plan would cost $2.25T and add an additional $800B to the deficit over 10 years. While large at first blush, these costs pale in comparison to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan, which would add a projected $12.95T to the deficit over the same period.

Of course, there are still many unanswered questions in Biden’s proposal, including how much consumers would pay under the public option, how much the public option plan would reimburse providers as a percentage of Medicare, and how the public option would impact competition among private insurers.

A public option offered at a significant discount has the potential to drive private plans out of business, which some project could eventually result in Medicare for All as an ultimate consequence. The devil will, as always, be in the details.

 

California accuses healthcare sharing ministry of misleading consumers

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Deceptive Advertising, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Individual Health Insurance, Individual Mandate, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Preexisting Conditions, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/california-accuses-healthcare-sharing-ministry-of-misleading-consumers/573900/

Image result for California accuses healthcare sharing ministry of misleading consumers

Dive Brief:

  • The California Department of Insurance issued a cease and desist order to a major Christian group Wednesday for misleading consumers about their health insurance plans and acting as a payer without proper certification, joining a handful of other states scrutinizing the limited coverage.
  • Deceptive marketing by Aliera Healthcare, which sells health ministry plans, and Trinity, which runs them, led to roughly 11,000 Californians belonging to the unapproved “lookalike” plans that don’t cover pre-existing conditions and other required benefits, with no guarantees their claims will be paid, the state’s insurance regulator said.
  • Healthcare sharing ministries (HCSMs) are organizations where members share a common set of religious or ethical beliefs and agree to share the medical expenses of other members. They’re increasingly controversial, as policy experts worry the low-cost insurance attracts healthier individuals from the broader insurance market, creating smaller and sicker risk pools in plans compliant with the Affordable Care Act.

Dive Insight:

Aliera, founded in 2011 and based in Georgia, and Trinity allegedly trained sales agents to promote misleading advertisements to consumers, peddling products that don’t cover pre-existing conditions, abortion, or contraception. The shoddy coverage also doesn’t comply with the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the ACA.

The deceptive advertising could have pressured some Californians to buy a health sharing ministry plan because they believed they missed the deadline for buying coverage through Covered California, the state’s official insurance marketplace.

“Consumers should know they may be able to get comprehensive coverage through Covered California that will protect their health care rights,” California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement.

HCSMs, which began cropping up more than two decades ago as a low-cost alternative approach to managing growing medical costs, operate either by matching members with those who need help paying medical bills or sharing costs on a voluntary basis. They’re often cheaper than traditional insurance, but they don’t guarantee payment of claims, rarely have provider networks, provide limited benefits and usually cap payments, which can saddle beneficiaries with unexpected bills.

About 1 million Americans have joined the groups, according to the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries.

At least 30 states have exempted HCSMs from state regulation, according to the Commonwealth Fund, meaning the ministries don’t have to comply with health insurance requirements. California does not exempt the religious-based groups from the state insurance code.

In January, Aliera and its subsidiaries, which includes Trinity, were banned from marketing HCSMs in Colorado after being accused of acting as an unlicensed insurer. One month later, Maryland issued a revocation order against Aliera for trying to sell an unauthorized plan in the state. Earlier this month, Connecticut issued a cease and desist order for conducting an insurance business illegally.

Aliera argues states are limiting the choices available to consumers, telling Healthcare Dive it was “deeply disappointing to see state regulators working to deny residents access to more affordable programs.”

“We will utilize all available opportunities to address the false claims being made about the support and management services we provide to Trinity HealthShare and other health care ministries we represent,” Aliera said.

However, Aliera and Trinity don’t meet the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a health sharing ministry, according to California’s cease and desist, meaning their beneficiaries don’t meet California’s state individual insurance mandate.

The state can impose a fine of up to $5,000 a day for each day the two continue to do business, along with other financial penalties.

 

 

 

 

US Supreme Court Agrees to Review Affordable Care Act — for the Third Time

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

US Supreme Court Agrees to Review Affordable Care Act — for the Third Time

Image result for US Supreme Court Agrees to Review Affordable Care Act — for the Third Time

The fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is once again in the hands of the US Supreme Court. On March 2, the court announced that it would hear a case challenging the health law, a wide-ranging measure that “touches the lives of most Americans, from nursing mothers to people eating at chain restaurants,” wrote Reed Abelson, Abby Goodnough, and Robert Pear in the New York Times. This will be the third time the court will rule on the ACA since President Barack Obama signed it on March 23, 2010.Essential Coverage

“The justices will review a federal appeals court decision that found part of the law . . . unconstitutional and raised questions about whether the law in its entirety must fall,” reported Robert Barnes in the Washington Post. He noted that it is one of the first cases accepted for the Supreme Court term beginning October 5, which means a decision is not likely until spring or summer of 2021.

Should the court overturn the ACA, many Americans would lose the benefits afforded under the law. As Dylan Scott wrote in Vox, “everything would go: protections for preexisting conditions, subsidies that help people purchase insurance, the Medicaid expansion.”

Let’s break down each of those categories.

Protections for Preexisting Conditions

Before the ACA, people with preexisting conditions, which included common medical conditions like asthma, diabetes, and cancer, were denied health insurance or charged higher insurance premiums. Important benefits like maternity care and mental health services frequently were carved out of the benefit packages in health plans sold in the individual market — that is, outside of employer-sponsored coverage. An issue brief (PDF) by the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that up to 133 million nonelderly Americans have a preexisting condition.

As Andy Slavitt, the former administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President Obama, wrote on Twitter, examples of being charged more included “$4,270 more for asthma, $17,060 for pregnancy, and $160,510 for metastatic cancer.”

Under the ACA, insurers are no longer allowed to deny coverage or charge higher prices to people with preexisting conditions. But if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA, these protections would vanish.

Medicaid Expansion

A key provision of the ACA is expanded eligibility for enrollment in Medicaid, a federally funded state option adopted so far by 36 states and the District of Columbia. More than 12 million adults with low incomes have gained Medicaid coverage through this provision, and research comparing expansion and nonexpansion states has linked expanded Medicaid access to better health outcomes.

According to the Urban Institute, if the ACA is repealed, “the uninsurance rate across all expansion states would increase from 9% of the nonelderly under current law to 17% under repeal. In nonexpansion states, the uninsurance rate would increase from 15% of the nonelderly to 21%.” Many of the newly uninsured would be the result of losing the Medicaid coverage the ACA provided.

“The uninsured rate for Black Americans would increase from 11% to 20% without Obamacare,” Scott reported. “There would also be a dramatic spike in uninsurance among Hispanics.”

Subsidies to Help People Purchase Insurance

To expand access to affordable health insurance for those who can’t get it through their jobs, the ACA offers federal subsidies to people with low and moderate incomes who buy insurance through the ACA insurance exchanges. The subsidies take the form of premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies.

Approximately 9.2 million Americans receive federal subsidies, reported Abelson, Goodnough, and Pear. “On average, the subsidies covered $525 of a $612 monthly premium for customers in the 39 states that use the federal marketplace,” they wrote.

If the ACA is overturned and the subsidies are eliminated, the cost of health insurance would become unaffordable for many of those 9.2 million people, and the uninsured population would soar.

Polls Show Public Support for the ACA

According to the February 2020 KFF Health Tracking Poll, 55% of Americans say they now favor the ACA, a new high compared to approval ratings below 40% as recently as 2016. Today 85% of Democrats express favorable views of the law, compared to 53% of independents and 18% of Republicans.

Though overall support for the health law remains partisan, many of its provisions have broad bipartisan support, KFF staff wrote in Health Affairs. For instance, large majorities of Democrats (94%), independents (88%), and Republicans (77%) have a favorable view of the ACA’s health insurance exchanges, and most Democrats (80%), independents (71%), and Republicans (54%) view the Medicaid expansion favorably.

Rising Health Costs Worsen California’s Coronavirus Threat

The global spread of the novel coronavirus disease known as COVID-19 puts threats to the ACA into perspective. Despite the coverage gains made under the ACA, nearly 28 million Americans remain uninsured, and that number would rise if the law were overturned. As Chris Sloan, associate principal at the consulting firm Avalere Health, told Caitlin Owens in Axios, we “could see uninsured or underinsured patients . . . skipping necessary treatment because they believe they can’t afford it.”

“Some lawmakers are concerned that the tens of millions who are underinsured — Americans with high deductibles or limited insurance — may also be at risk of unexpected expenses as more and more people are exposed to the virus,” Reed Abelson and Sarah Kliff reported in the New York Times.

Kristof Stremikis, director of CHCF’s market analysis and insight team, wrote in a recent blog post, “In an era when the average deductible facing a working family in California now exceeds $2,700, it’s not hard to imagine how many people missed detection and treatment opportunities because they could not afford to pay for them.”

To address some of these concerns, the California Department of Insurance (PDF) and the Department of Managed Health Care (PDF) directed all commercial health plans and Medi-Cal plans to “immediately reduce cost-sharing (including, but not limited to, co-pays, deductibles, or co-insurance) to zero for all medically necessary screening and testing for COVID-19, including hospital, emergency department, urgent care, and provider office visits where the purpose of the visit is to be screened and/or tested for COVID-19.”

Similar policies have been announced by state regulators in Washington and New York, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

 

 

 

Two candidates remain: Mr. Medicare for All and Mr. Public Option

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicare, Medicare for All, Public Option, Single Payer Health System, Single Payer Healthcare System, Supreme Court, Texas v. United States • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9e118141a707/the-weekly-gist-march-6-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Image result for Medicare for All and Public Option

The past week in Presidential politics has been momentous—but not clarifying—for determining both the eventual Democratic nominee and the healthcare platform of the party. Between the first ballots cast in South Carolina and the last votes counted in California, the field of viable candidates for the nomination has been winnowed to two: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden. The coming weeks will feature a knock-down, drag-out fight for delegates in the run-up to what is likely to be a contested convention in Milwaukee in mid-July, pitting Biden’s “establishment” wing of the party against Sanders’ “progressive” wing.

On the healthcare front, that means a continued debate between defenders of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), who want to extend coverage, as Biden does, using a government-run “public option” plan, and supporters of single-payer, “Medicare for All” (M4A) coverage, which Sanders advocates. That’s the same argument Democrats have been having since the campaign started, and while healthcare remains the top issue of concern for primary voters, polls indicate that both plans are popular with the electorate.

We continue to believe that the public option plan is a far more likely outcome than M4A, but only if the Democrats win control of the Senate—a prospect which appears more possible given billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s post-Super Tuesday endorsement of Biden, and plans to devote his substantial campaign resources to support Democratic candidates across the ballot. Some of that money will surely be spent in Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock is poised to announce plans to run against incumbent Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), in a critical race that could be the most expensive Senate contest in history.

And for an indication of how the politics of a public option would play out, look no further than Colorado, where the Democratic legislature moved forward with its version of the plan this week, over the objections of the hospital and insurance lobbies.

Finally, looming over the general election campaign will be the pivotal Texas vs. California case, which the Supreme Court agreed to take up in this fall’s term. That case will ensure that healthcare will remain the centerpiece of American political debates regardless of who leads the Democratic ticket. Buckle up.

 

Why State Efforts to Mandate Coronavirus Testing Will Fall Short

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Coronavirus, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Self Insured Employers • Leave a comment

Why State Efforts to Mandate Coronavirus Testing Will Fall Short

Image result for ERISA

To cope with incipient coronavirus outbreaks, Washington and New York have announced emergency directives requiring insurers to cover COVID-19 testing without cost-sharing. The states recognize that high deductibles and other out-of-pocket payments discourage people from getting tested, which in turn threatens public health.

Both states have acted pursuant to laws governing the regulation of insurance. In Washington, for example, the state insurance commissioner is empowered to issue orders addressing “medical coverage to ensure access to care” when the governor declares an emergency. Similarly, New York’s Superintendent of Financial Services says that it will issue an “emergency regulation” to require insurers to cover testing without cost-sharing (though the precise authority to issue that regulation is a little vague).

But the directives are more limited in scope than they appear, and will provide no help at all to the approximately 100 million people nationwide who receive coverage through self-insured employers. As with so many problems that arise in health law, the reason is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

When Congress adopted ERISA, it wasn’t thinking very hard about health insurance. It was thinking about pension plans, which many employers had chronically underfunded, leaving retired employees high and dry. So Congress adopted ERISA to offer some basic protections for employees. In exchange, Congress preempted any state laws that “relate to” employee benefit plans.

Congress carved out an exception to ERISA’s broad preemptive scope for laws regulating insurance. That’s a domain that’s traditionally been left to the states. Washington and New York can thus tell private insurers—including those that offer employer-sponsored coverage—to abide by their emergency rules.

But lots of firms don’t actually buy insurance for their employees. Instead, larger firms usually “self-insure,” meaning that they pay for their employees’ health expenses themselves. (Odds are that, if you’re employed, you work at a self-insured firm—61% of people with employer-sponsored coverage do.) And ERISA clarifies that employers, when they self-insure, aren’t to be treated as insurers.

The upshot of this convoluted scheme is that the states can’t regulate self-funded employer plans. They’re regulated, instead, by the U.S. Department of Labor under ERISA. But because Congress didn’t think of ERISA as a regulation of health insurance, it didn’t authorize the kind of emergency health regulations that Washington and New York are now drawing on.

That’s one reason the federal government has looked so feckless when it’s tried to say that it will guarantee access to testing. Vice President Pence, for example, said yesterday that testing is an “‘essential health benefit,’ which means the test will be covered by health insurance plans, Medicare and Medicaid.”

But the EHB rules don’t apply at all to large employers or to Medicare. Even if they did, insurers can (and do!) impose cost-sharing for EHBs, and could do so for a COVID-19 test. It’s a completely meaningless statement.

Nor can the federal government slide coronavirus testing into the part of the Affordable Care Act that requires coverage without cost-sharing for high-quality preventive services designated by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Not only is that task force ill-equipped to move quickly, but the ACA says that its recommendations can only take effect after a “minimum interval” that “shall not be less than 1 year.” That’s much too late.

Unless I’m missing something, the federal government simply does not have the legal power to require employers to cover coronavirus testing without cost-sharing. The Association of Health Insurance Plans has said that its members may voluntarily waive cost-sharing, but they may not, and in any event AHIP doesn’t represent employers, who get to make the final call on what they do and don’t cover.

Congress will have to act—and it should act immediately to assure swift, reliable, and no-cost access to testing services. The broader lesson, though, is that Congress’s blunderbuss approach to preemption under ERISA has led to a situation in which neither the states nor the federal government is equipped to regulate the coverage practices of large, self-insured employers. That gap in legal authority could have pernicious consequences in the coming months.

 

 

Miami man with ‘junk plan’ owes thousands after hospital visit for coronavirus symptoms

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Coronavirus, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Rev Cycle Management, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/miami-man-with-junk-plan-owes-thousands-after-hospital-visit-for-coronavirus-symptoms.html?utm_medium=email

Image result for skinny health plans

A man in Miami went to Jackson Memorial Hospital last month to receive a test for coronavirus after developing flu-like symptoms. He didn’t have the virus, but he was hit with a $3,270 medical bill, according to the Miami Herald.   

Osmel Martinez Azcue said he normally would have used over-the-counter medicine to fight his flu-like symptoms. However, since he had recently visited China, he followed the advice of public health experts and went to the hospital to get tested for coronavirus, known as COVID-19. 

Mr. Azcue said hospital staff told him a CT scan would be necessary to screen for coronavirus. He asked to receive a flu test first. The flu test came back positive.

A few weeks after leaving Jackson Memorial Hospital, Mr. Azcue received a $3,270 medical bill. Though he was insured, Mr. Azcue had a so-called “junk plan,” which offered limited benefits and didn’t cover pre-existing conditions.

Based on his insurance plan, Mr. Azcue is responsible for $1,400 of the bill, hospital officials told the Miami Herald. However, to get the claim covered, Mr. Azcue said his insurance company requested three years of medical records to show that his flu didn’t relate to pre-existing conditions.

The sale of “junk plans,” like the one Mr. Azcue pays $180 per month for, expanded after President Donald Trump’s administration rolled back ACA regulations in 2018.

Access the full Miami Herald article here.

 

Cartoon – Modern Health Insurance Coverage

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Cartoon, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Plan, Health Policy, Preexisting Conditions, Short Term Health Insurance, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

Image result for cartoon inadequate health insurance coverage