Tag Archives: Cost Sharing Reduction Payments

CBO: ObamaCare premiums could rise 20 percent if Trump ends payments

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

CBO: ObamaCare premiums could rise 20 percent if Trump ends payments

Image result for congressional budget office

Insurance companies would raise premium prices about 20 percent for ObamaCare plans if President Trump ends key payments to insurers, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

At the request of House Democratic leadership, CBO estimated what would happen if the payments to insurers ended after December. It found that halting payments would increase the federal deficit by $194 billion through 2026.

Many people would be cushioned from the impact of the increases because federal tax credits rise automatically when premiums do.

If the payments ended, some carriers would withdraw from ObamaCare and about 5 percent of people would live in an area without any options on the exchanges in 2018, according to CBO. But by 2020, CBO estimates more insurers would participate again, so that most areas would be covered.

The number of people without insurance would be slightly higher next year but a little lower in 2020, according to the analysis.

Cost-sharing reduction payments are made to insurers, compensating them for discounting out-of-pocket costs for certain enrollees.

Insurers have been pleading for certainty from the administration on whether they’ll continue to receive the payments, which total about $7 billion for fiscal 2017.

The administration has been making these payments on a monthly basis. But Trump has threatened to halt the funds, calling the money “bailouts” for insurance companies.

The issue has also been caught up in court, and if Trump decides to stop appealing a court ruling against the administration, CSR payments could stop. The deadline for another update is coming up quick — Aug. 20. The case has been on hold for months and could be delayed again.

Additionally, the Senate Health Committee will hold hearings on a bipartisan, short-term stabilization measure the first week of September. The goal, according to Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), is to craft a bill by mid-September that includes funding the payments to insurers.

But insurers are bumping up against major deadlines.

Last week, the administration extended the deadline for carriers to finalize how much their premiums will cost on HealthCare.gov. That date is now Sept. 5, and insurers sign contracts locking them into selling plans Sept. 27.

If insurers don’t know if CSRs will be funded, they could exit the marketplaces, health experts warn. That could possibly lead to some areas have no insurers selling plans on their exchanges.

 

CBO: Ending cost-sharing reduction payments will increase premiums, federal deficit

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/aca/cbo-ending-cost-sharing-reduction-payments-will-increase-premiums-federal-deficit?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVdKa1pEazNOMll5WVRreiIsInQiOiJkaVJDVnRHOXNNXC9ENmt6WFpTTFwvZGVQeThhQVRjZHR2VE9jUEVQQUtlZ3BxUFg0akRMM0FOK2hWZUc4ajJ4WVdzOUV3Z21GM1cyU1VVOWNDekZ2aVwvZG11VnFVVDQ3WEJvejBQU3ZVZTM4bjZyK3A1VjlcL3Q0Mmtsc3VJUTErS0wifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610&utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Image result for congressional budget office

If the Trump administration stops funding cost-sharing reduction payments, silver-plan premiums on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will rise considerably and the federal deficit will increase, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

Officially, the administration remains undecided about how long it will continue making CSR payments, which are at the center of a federal court case that challenges their legality. Many insurers have had to factor this uncertainty into their preliminary rate filings.

To map out the consequences of one possible move by the administration, the CBO examined what would happen if federal officials announced at the end of August that they would continue CSR payments through the end of the year but discontinue them after that.

That policy would result in silver-plan premiums rising by an average of 20% in 2018 and 25% by 2020, the CBO estimates. Because tax credits rise in tandem with premiums, most eligible enrollees would not pay higher rates than they would if CSR payments continued—though the report also notes that overall, “the share of people facing slight increases would be higher during the next two years.”

Since more people would likely receive premium tax credits and in greater amounts, the CBO predicts that ending CSR payments would raise the federal deficit by $6 billion in 2018, $21 billion in 2020 and $26 billion in 2026.

The CBO also predicts that ending CSR payments would cause some insurers to exit the individual marketplaces, leaving about 5% of people living in areas that have no ACA exchange insurer in 2018. However, the agency predicts that more insurers would likely return to the exchanges in 2020 after having adjusted to the new policy.

Overall, the number of uninsured people would be slightly higher in 2018 but slightly lower starting in 2020 under the scenario the CBO examined, per the report.

A snapshot into why some providers are eliminating positions

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/healthcare-workforce-growth-cuts/446182/

Employment in the healthcare industry has risen since the ACA was passed, but many health systems have been trimming their workforce under financial pressure.

It’s clear there have been a fair amount of hospital and provider layoffs in 2017.

In the past few months, hospitals of all sizes, and in all parts of the country, have said they are cutting jobs or eliminating open positions. Major providers affected have included Memorial Hermann, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, NYC Health + Hospitals, Summa Health and Hallmark Health. In May, Becker’s Hospital Review listed 48 layoffs across the industry the publication had reported on in 2017.

The layoffs come in contrast with the sharp rise in hiring in the healthcare sector ever since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted. While the hiring growth is a long-term trend — though it’s yet to be determined at what rate in 2017 — these layoffs are due in part to the short-term trends of softening admissions and flattening reimbursements. Many providers cited similar problems: declining reimbursements, lower admissions and shrinking operating incomes. Layoffs aren’t the only play for struggling organizations, but hospital expenses are rising on multiple fronts, and executives have to make some hard choices.

Big drivers of the growth are the aging population and the pending retirement of many registered nurses. It’s unclear how or when the layoff and healthcare job growth trends will change, but the underlying themes are not going away. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is scheduled to release 2016-2026 occupational projections in October, while layoffs will continue to be tracked throughout the year.

Then there’s the elephant in the room over the buzzword of 2017: Uncertainty. Whether it be in Congress or in the executive branch, uncertainty over U.S. healthcare policy is making providers nervous as the insurance open enrollment period nears with no clear ACA reform or repeal in sight.

Healthcare hiring still on the rise, but the pace may be slowing

To date, the healthcare employment bubble hasn’t burst. Healthcare jobs, including hospital jobs, still are on the rise. While job growth is a different metric than layoffs and require different considerations, both underscore the themes affecting the industry’s workforce.

Ani Turner, co-director of Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending, told Healthcare Dive there have been some clear trends in hospital job growth in recent years. In 2013, there was little job growth but the expanded coverage affect — where more individuals gained health insurance for the first time under the ACA — helped spur hospital job growth in 2014.

This expanded coverage helped hospitals experience new revenue opportunities thanks to more people entering the care delivery space, especially in states that expanded Medicaid. In addition, since the implementation of the ACA, the level of uncompensated care nationwide has gone down from $46.4 billion in 2013 to $35.7 billion in 2015.

Since that time, hospitals experienced great growth from a jobs perspective. In a 2015 Forbes article, Politico’s Dan Diamond noted that healthcare job growth surged at its fastest pace since 1991 starting in July 2014 up through May of 2015. In fact, healthcare practitioners and healthcare support positions are expected to be among the fastest growing jobs from 2014 to 2024. BLS notes the aging population and expanded insurance coverage will help fuel this growth as demand for healthcare services increases.

The recent surge is “somewhat unexpected,” Turner says. “One would think hospitals would be conservative in their hiring. Everything I’m seeing is flat or slightly declining volumes, especially on inpatient side.”

“The data don’t always cooperate with the story that makes sense,” Turner added.

Brian Augustian, principal at Deloitte, believes the job growth is going to continue to slow this year in part because there will be a push for greater automation and productivity. “As organizations are able to use machine learning, artificial intelligence and better utilize technology to get tasks done, it will not only result in…needing fewer people but also different types of people,” he told Healthcare Dive.

The rate of job growth will be an issue to watch throughout the year. As shown above, just two months worth of data changes the story from a narrative of “slowing growth” to “continuing to soar.” The looming retirement of registered nurses and the aging population do point to hospitals and providers arming themselves to smooth the transition of both the workforce as well as the pending flood of baby boomers entering into the care space.

Job growth doesn’t stop financial troubles for providers

However, as seen in the job cut announcements and recent quarterly earnings for hospital operators, providers are facing challenges that are affecting their bottom lines.

One of the biggest challenges for providers is declining or flattening admissions. In 2010, all hospital admissions totaled 36.9 million admissions. By 2013, admissions had dropped by 1.5 million; 35 million patients were admitted in 2015.

In the latest rounds of quarterly earnings, most for-profit hospital operators took a lashing, all acknowledging softening markets and weaker-than-expected patient volumes. Community Health Systems (CHS) reported it underperformed in Q2 2017 and is exploring more divestitures while HCA Healthcare reported it missed Q2 estimates due in part to higher expenses and lower-than-expected patient admissions. On Monday, Tenet Health reported a 4.5% decline in total admissions for the first six months of 2017.

Indiana University Health’s operating income suffered a 46% loss while seeing less individuals coming into the facilities, Modern Healthcare reported.

As seen in HCA Healthcare’s Q2 earnings call, lower acuity visits declined in the last quarter. At CHS, emergency department volume declined on the outpatient side, which Tim Hingtgen, president and COO of CHS, attributed to “industry dynamics, including urgent care growth, freestanding ED competition in select markets.” As Turner notes, the average person seeking a care setting visit is likely going to a physician’s office. This puts pressure on operators to rethink their lower acuity setting strategies and not rest on the strength of organic patient growth seen in previous years.

Another major issue for providers are expenses. More jobs equals more expenses, for example. Facility maintenance, equipment, electricity, telephone lines, internet, etc. all add up. According to the American Hospital Association, expenses for all U.S. registered hospitals are currently $936 billion, up from $859.4 billion in 2013. In addition to these changes, turning toward value-based care exposes providers more to risk-based contracts which can affect reimbursement formulas.

Hospitals know they need to lower cost structures, and personnel changes is one means

Ben Isgur, director of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute, adds that squeezing costs isn’t a new concept for hospitals. There are many options for executives to manage out costs from its overhead. Supply chain, infrastructure and third party contracts are all go-to areas for such efforts. If two systems merge, departments can be streamlined or share services. In some cases, third-party contractors may be more beneficial to a provider than hiring for internal positions.

Igor Belokrinitsky, healthcare strategist at Strategy&, a member of the PwC network of firms, told Healthcare Dive in March many administrators faced with financial challenges tell their departments during the budgeting process to budget for zero cost increases or even for a reduction. “In the longer run, we are seeing and are working with health systems to take out pretty significant amounts of cost out of their operations, both clinical and nonclinical, and setting targets like 15-20%, which is a transformative change,” he said. “When talking about a 20% cost improvement, you’re questioning, ‘Do we need this facility? Do we need to provide this service at this location? Does this service need to be provided by a physician?'”

The current political landscape isn’t helping matters either

Isgur tells Healthcare Dive that healthcare industry layoffs should be watched closely and agrees with Turner that one of the biggest reasons is uncertainty in the industry.

As an example, he points to the Congressional Budget Office’s figure that 15 million individuals could have lost health coverage in 2018 if the Senate ACA repeal bill had become law. “Providers look at that and have to be ready for an environment where they have potentially fewer paying patients,” Isgur told Healthcare Dive.

During the heady time when ACA repeal-and/or-replace was on Congress’ plate this summer, many projections showed healthcare jobs would’ve been affected. One analysis of the House ACA bill estimated 725,000 jobs across the entire industry would be lost by 2026 if it had become law. The primary cause of the job disappearances and state economic downturns would have been attributable to cuts to healthcare funding, such as more than $800 billion to Medicaid, and lower premium subsidies.

Moody’s Investor Services projected the Senate ACA repeal bill would have caused uncompensated care costs to rise at hospitals.

The fight over healthcare policy is likely now headed to the executive branch, as Congress has failed to pass a bill that repeals or replaces the ACA. President Donald Trump has cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers hanging in the balance, and hasn’t publicly stated if the White House will continue to make these payments.

If these payments are discontinued, Fitch Ratings found in a new report that premiums could increase to the point where customers won’t be able to pay for coverage, thus increasing the chance for uncompensated payments to rise.

In addition, state Medicaid waivers will have to be looked at. Some applications, such as the Maine’s, could include work requirements, mandatory premiums and asset testing. It would be one of the most conservative state programs, and some health policy experts warn that the restrictions would push out many low-income adults who would otherwise qualify.

“When you add uncertainty to what’s already been going on in the reimbursement environment around how many more uninsured there may be going forward, that’s not the cause of [layoffs] but it’s certainly going to accelerate the thinking of executive teams to make sure [their organizations] are efficient and ready for anything,” Isgur said.

Isgur does think the industry will see more layoff announcements this year, but that it is an important trend to watch, especially as more decisions come out of Washington.

 

Why ACA market upheaval still looms large despite failure to repeal the law

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/why-aca-market-upheaval-still-looms-large-despite-failure-to-repeal-the-law/449117/

Whether lawmakers are done with efforts to repeal the ACA or not, some important changes for healthcare could be on the horizon.

At least one part of the healthcare industry is still looking to Washington D.C. after the flurry of activity last month, if only for one action. In addition to the highly public failure to pass major healthcare legislation before leaving town for a month, Congress and President Donald Trump also left the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange markets in a dangerous flux by not taking action on the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments for insurers.

It’s not clear whether Congress will continue to take up Republican healthcare legislation to repeal the ACA when it returns. Even within the party, senators are singing different tunes, while President Donald Trump continues to pressure lawmakers to get an ACA repeal bill on his desk. A bipartisan group with members from both chambers has a few ideas, but the majority of lawmakers appear ready to move on. Regardless, they will still have to take up reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in September, potential reigniting some debates around the ACA.

If GOP leaders do declare ACA repeal off the table for this year, its opponents will look to the executive branch for efforts to weaken the law and its effects. Here’s what to look out for.

Cost-sharing reduction payments

Payers have been begging for assurance that CSRs will continue to be paid, but the White House and Congress have so far refused. The result has been many payers pulling out of the exchange markets or reducing their footprints, as well as premium hikes of 30% or more. Just last week, Anthem announced it is pulling out of the Nevada and Virginia exchange markets and reducing its participation in Georgia.

Not paying the CSRs would increase federal spending, because the higher premiums will require higher premium subsidies for the 84% in the exchanges who qualify for help. That’s not to mention the 30,000 or more who would have no insurance options.

Trump hasn’t been shy about his plan to halt any efforts that stabilize the exchange markets (like CSRs) in an effort to sabotage the ACA and force unwilling Democrats to cooperate on a repeal bill. Others in the GOP, however, have been reluctant to hurt constituents with such an overtly political play.

America’s Health Insurance Plans has said it is imperative the CSRs are funded. “These benefits are essential to making coverage and care affordable for American families who receive them,” the organization said. “Clarity and commitment to this funding is needed to eliminate confusion and anxiety for consumers.”

It may soon be too late for CSR payments to matter for next year. Payers must sign their contracts with HealthCare.gov by Sept. 21. The CMS and some states have tried to give insurers more flexibility because of the uncertainty by pushing back rate filing deadlines. Connecticut said it will allow payers to refile their rates if the CSR payments are eliminated, and California allowed them to file two sets of rates, one of which assumes no CSRs.

Weakening the ACA

Trump’s threat to “let Obamacare implode” may go beyond refusing to shore up the exchange markets. His administration has already pulled advertising and promotion of the exchanges, and is being investigated by the Government Accountability Office for pushing the GOP healthcare bills in official HHS communication channels. Immediately after his inauguration, Trump signed a wide-ranging executive order instructing federal agencies to “exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay any provision or requirement” of the ACA that imposes a fiscal or regulatory burden.

No major changes have resulted from the order so far, but it could be used to roll back benefit requirements for preventive care, contraception and mental health services.

HHS Secretary Tom Price could also make changes that weaken the ACA’s individual mandate. Repealing the mandate would mean 15 million fewer Americans would have coverage by 2026 and result in premium increases of about 20%, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Watering down the requirement instead of ditching it completely would have less drastic results, but there would still be an impact.

Price could create more exemptions for the mandate or attempt to force the Internal Revenue Service to stop enforcing it. Either of these actions would add turmoil to the exchanges markets and undermine the efforts of the ACA.

Reauthorizing CHIP

Those watching health legislation in Congress are eyeing CHIP reauthorization as a possible vehicle for changes to the ACA. Lawmakers will be hesitant, though, as CHIP is a successful program with bipartisan support.

The program, which turned 20 years old this past weekend, covered nearly 9 million children in fiscal 2016. CHIP coverage is more affordable than employer-sponsored or marketplace coverage, while children covered under CHIP are more likely to have a usual source of care and regularly attend well-child visits, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, which recommends Congress extend CHIP funding through 2022.

The commission estimates more than a million children would lose coverage if CHIP loses funding.

Bipartisan legislation and state waivers

A bipartisan group of about 40 members of the House is proposing some relatively small changes to the ACA that have received support from both sides of the aisle in the past. The plan is to put them in a bill that would also immediately fund the CSRs.

Their suggestions include exempting smaller businesses from the employer mandate, a fund states can go to for help covering people with high care costs and more flexibility and guidance for states looking to apply for ACA waivers. Another possible measure is repeal of the medical device tax.

Their proposal is to change the employer mandate by having it apply only to businesses with 500 or more employees, instead of the current requirement for businesses with 50 or more workers. Analysis from the Urban Instituteand Rand Corporation has shown the employer mandate has little effect on the number of people who have coverage, partly because nearly all businesses with at least 50 employees offered coverage even before the mandate went into effect.

The ACA has always given states the option of applying for a waiver that allows them to eschew essential health benefits and other requirements — as long as they can prove their plans will cover the same number of people with coverage that is just as comprehensive and affordable. HHS under President Barack Obama was careful in ensuring that state proposals met those guidelines, but current HHS Secretary Tom Price has said he wants to encourage more waivers and will be less strict with approvals of those waivers and Medicaid demonstration waivers.

With this in mind, some recent proposals have included aspects that would have previously been rejected. Last week, Maine applied for a Medicaid demonstration waiver that includes work requirements and asset testing. Those measures are likely to restrict access to coverage for people with low incomes.

Many of the options available for Congress and the executive branch could roil the industry, but some bipartisan options could provide much needed clarity. Summer is usually pretty quiet in Washington D.C., but this year has not been business as usual. Healthcare leaders would be wise to be ready for new developments with the ACA and beyond.

CBO to release analysis of ending key ObamaCare insurer payments

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

CBO to release analysis of ending key ObamaCare insurer payments

CBO to release analysis of ending key ObamaCare insurer payments

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will release an analysis next week detailing the effects of ending key ObamaCare insurer payments.

The CBO announced Friday the score would be released next week.

President Trump has threatened to cancel the payments, known as cost-sharing reductions, which reimburse insurers for giving discounted deductibles and copays to low-income people.

The administration has made the payments on a month-to-month basis but insurers have pleaded for long-term certainty.

The reimbursements total $7 billion for fiscal 2017, and regardless of whether the administration pays them, insurers would still be on the hook to offer these discounts to enrollees — they just wouldn’t be reimbursed for doing so.

Uncertainty over the future of the payments has contributed to insurers exiting the healthcare exchanges and proposed premium increases for 2018. More insurers might leave or increase premiums if the payments aren’t continued.

The Senate Health Committee will hold bipartisan hearings in September on ways to stabilize and strengthen the individual market.

The goal is to craft a bipartisan, short-term proposal by mid-September, which could include funding the payments.

Facing Trump Subsidy Cuts, Health Insurance Officials Seek a Backup Plan

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Image result for Facing Trump Subsidy Cuts, Health Insurance Officials Seek a Backup Plan

Congress is on vacation, but state insurance commissioners have no time off. They have spent the past three days debating what to do if President Trump stops subsidies paid to insurance companies on behalf of millions of low-income people.

For administration officials and many in Congress, the subsidies are a political and legal issue in a fight over the future of the Affordable Care Act. But for state officials, gathered here at the summer meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the subsidies are a more immediate, practical concern.

The insurance commissioners are frustrated with the gridlock in Washington, which they say threatens coverage for consumers and the solvency of some insurers. Without the payments, they say, consumers will face higher premiums in 2018, and more insurers will pull back from the individual insurance market.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut off the payments, which reimburse insurers for reducing the deductibles, co-payments and other out-of-pocket costs for low-income people.

If the government continues providing funds for the subsidies, insurers will have “a small profit,” said Craig Wright, the chief actuary at the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. “If the subsidies are not funded, carriers would face the prospect of large financial losses, which could increase the risk to their solvency.”

“It could be very damaging,” Mr. Wright said. “Our market wouldn’t recover.”

With no guidance or clarity from the Trump administration, state officials are agonizing over what to do. Many expressed a sense of urgency, saying they needed to make decisions soon on rates to be charged in 2018.

Trump administration officials were invited to speak to state insurance regulators and were listed in the program for at least one public session, but they did not show up at that event to provide the promised update on federal policy.

“Most of us are hoping and praying that this gets resolved,” said David Shea, a health actuary at the Virginia Bureau of Insurance. “But that’s not the case right now.”

Without the federal subsidies, insurers would need to get the money — estimated at $7 billion to $10 billion next year — from another source. And that means higher premiums, state officials said.

The officials here are wrestling with several questions: How much should premiums be increased? Who should pay the higher premiums? Is there any way to minimize the effect on low-income people? Is it better to assume that the cost-sharing subsidy payments will or will not be made in 2018? What happens if state officials guess wrong?

State officials said they would allow insurers to impose a surcharge on premiums if the federal government cuts off funds for the cost-sharing subsidies.

Paul Lombardo, a health actuary at the Connecticut Insurance Department, said officials there might direct insurers to spread the cost across all of their health plans, both on and off the insurance exchange created under the Affordable Care Act.

By contrast, Florida has asked insurers to load all of the extra cost into the prices charged for midlevel “silver plans” sold on the exchange. The federal government would then absorb almost all of the cost through another subsidy program, which provides tax credits to help low-income people pay premiums, Mr. Wright said. The tax credits generally increase when premiums rise.

J. P. Wieske, the deputy insurance commissioner in Wisconsin, said that two companies, Anthem and Molina Healthcare, were leaving the state’s marketplace in 2018 and that two others, Humana and UnitedHealth, exited in previous years. As a result, he said, more people will be enrolled in smaller local health plans that could be more affected by a termination of federal subsidy payments.

“Carriers left in the Wisconsin market are smaller, local plans,” Mr. Wieske said. “Particular carriers could have huge surges in population, going from 7 or 8 percent of their business in the individual market to 30 or 40 percent. If that’s the case, if it’s 30 or 40 percent of their business in the individual market, that’s obviously a gargantuan risk.”

The risks for consumers are also high, Mr. Wieske said. “Consumers,” he said, “could be stuck in a zombie plan, an insurer that is essentially no longer able to do business in the worst-case scenario, or consumers may have to move to another insurer with different health care providers.”

Officials in many states must decide this month on insurance rates for next year.

“We are holding off making those decisions until the very last possible minute,” said Julie Mix McPeak, the Tennessee insurance commissioner. “In doing so, we are really making it difficult for consumers who need information about open enrollment — who’s participating in the market and what the rates might be. We don’t know the answers to any of those questions.”

The uncertainty stems not only from the White House and Congress, but also from federal courts.

House Republicans challenged the cost-sharing payments in a lawsuit in 2014. A federal judge ruled last year that the Obama administration had been illegally making the payments, in the absence of a law explicitly providing money for the purpose. The case is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has held it “in abeyance” at the request of House Republicans and the Trump administration.

The administration has been providing funds for cost-sharing subsidies month to month, with no commitment to pay for the remainder of this year, much less for 2018.

“I am very fearful that we’ll have insurers make a decision to leave markets as a result of the uncertainty,” said Ms. McPeak, who is the president-elect of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. “It’s somewhat inequitable to ask insurers to sign a contract that binds them but may not bind the federal government.”

The Affordable Care Act requires an annual review of health insurance rate increases, and states are taking different approaches.

Nebraska initially told insurers to file 2018 rates on the assumption that the cost-sharing subsidies would continue. But “because of the confusion in Washington,” said Martin W. Swanson of the Nebraska Insurance Department, the state later told insurers to assume that they would not receive the subsidy payments.

Mike Chaney, the Mississippi insurance commissioner, and Allen W. Kerr, the Arkansas insurance commissioner, said they had instructed companies to assume that they would receive the cost-sharing subsidies next year. Michigan has told insurers to submit two sets of rates, one with the subsidies and one without.

Michael F. Consedine, the chief executive of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, said that without a firm commitment of federal funds for the cost-sharing subsidies, “we have grave concerns about the long-term viability of the individual health insurance market in a number of states.”

“We need some step right away,” Mr. Consedine said, “either by action of Congress or by direction of the administration, to ensure that Americans continue to have access to coverage.”

Healthcare Triage News: The Trump Administration Has Many Options to Undermine Obamacare

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Healthcare Triage News: The Trump Administration Has Many Options to Undermine Obamacare

Image result for Healthcare Triage News: The Trump Administration Has Many Options to Undermine Obamacare

 

While the Senate and the House haven’t been very effective in passing a repeal of Obamacare, the ACA’s provisions are still at risk. There’s a lot that Donald Trump’s administration can do (or not do) to undermine Obamacare’s provisions and marketplaces.

The ACA stability “crisis” in perspective: Premiums Spike for Some Americans

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/the-aca-stability-crisis-in-perspective-2470990374.html

Image result for sharp premium increases?

 

The big questions about the stability of the Affordable Care Act marketplaces have focused on how fast premiums will rise, and how many plans will participate. But an equally important question, and the heart of the matter politically, is: How many people will be affected by the sharp premium increases?

The bottom line: The answer is about 6.7 million Americans who buy coverage in the non-group market in and out of the exchanges, and do not receive premium subsidies. That is a significant number of people, and an urgent policy problem requiring congressional attention and action by the administration, but it’s not a system-wide health insurance crisis. The non-group market has always been the most troubled part of the insurance system, and it was far worse before the ACA.

The breakdown:

  • 17.5 million in the non-group insurance market, including:
  • 10.3 million enrolled in the ACA exchanges
  • Approximately 7.2 million buying insurance off the exchanges
    • Most of this group buys ACA-compliant plans
    • About 1.2 million in “grandfathered” plans purchased before the ACA’s market reforms took effect

Yes, 17.5 million is a sizeable number, and what happens to their health insurance coverage and costs is important. But, to put it in perspective:

  • 156 million get their primary coverage through an employer, where premiums rose a modest 3% last year for family coverage
  • More than 74 million are covered by Medicaid and CHIP.

According to our new analysis of proposed 2018 premium changes in the exchanges, double-digit increases for benchmark silver plans are quite common, though the range across major cities is large, from a 5% decrease in Providence, R.I. to a 49% increase in Wilmington, Del.

A big reason for these increases is the uncertainty in the market surrounding Trump administration policies, especially whether they will let the $7 billion in cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies flow and whether the individual mandate will be enforced.

Who’s getting hit: 84% of the enrollees in the marketplaces – about 8.7 million people – receive premium subsidies under the ACA and are insulated from these premium hikes.

However, roughly 6.7 million people — the ones who buy ACA-compliant plans inside or outside the marketplace and aren’t subsidized — will feel the full brunt of premium increases. They’ll be hit if the uncertainty is not resolved and the rates do not come down before they are finalized.

In many cases, there is as much as a 20 percentage point swing or more in rates depending on whether the CSRs are paid.

The big picture: Dealing with this uncertainty is an urgent situation, particularly since it may result in some counties having no insurers at all, as well as coverage that is unaffordable for millions of Americans. But it is far from a crisis affecting most Americans and their health insurance.

The media needs to take great care to put this problem in perspective — otherwise they could unduly alarm the public and drive people to support the wrong policy solutions. Already, most Americans wrongly believe that premium increases in the relatively small non-group market affect them. So the headline should be: “Premiums Spike for SOME Americans.”

The danger in Congress is that discussion will spread too far beyond the immediate need to stabilize the non-group market, opening up all the old wounds surrounding the ACA and producing stalemate.

An Early Look at 2018 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation on ACA Exchanges

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

An Early Look at 2018 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation on ACA Exchanges

Related image

Each year insurers submit filings to state regulators detailing their plans to participate on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces (also called exchanges). These filings include information on the premiums insurers plan to charge in the coming year and which areas they plan to serve. Each state or the federal government reviews premiums to ensure they are accurate and justifiable before the rate goes into effect, though regulators have varying types of authority and states make varying amounts of information public.

In this analysis, we look at preliminary premiums and insurer participation in the 20 states and the District of Columbia where publicly available rate filings include enough detail to be able to show the premium for a specific enrollee. As in previous years, we focus on the second-lowest cost silver plan in the major city in each state. This plan serves as the benchmark for premium tax credits. Enrollees must also enroll in a silver plan to obtain reduced cost sharing tied to their incomes. About 71% of marketplace enrollees are in silver plans this year.

States are still reviewing premiums and participation, so the data in this report are preliminary and could very well change. Rates and participation are not locked in until late summer or early fall (insurers must sign an annual contract by September 27 in states using Healthcare.gov).

Insurers in this market face new uncertainty in the current political environment and in some cases have factored this into their premium increases for the coming year. Specifically, insurers have been unsure whether the individual mandate (which brings down premiums by compelling healthy people to buy coverage) will be repealed by Congress or to what degree it will be enforced by the Trump Administration. Additionally, insurers in this market do not know whether the Trump Administration will continue to make payments to compensate insurers for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), which are the subject of a lawsuit, or whether Congress will appropriate these funds. (More on these subsidies can be found here).

The vast majority of insurers included in this analysis cite uncertainty surrounding the individual mandate and/or cost sharing subsidies as a factor in their 2018 rates filings. Some insurers explicitly factor this uncertainty into their initial premium requests, while other companies say if they do not receive more clarity or if cost-sharing payments stop, they plan to either refile with higher premiums or withdraw from the market. We include a table in this analysis highlighting examples of companies that have factored this uncertainty into their initial premium increases and specified the amount by which the uncertainty is increasing rates.

Discussion

A number of insurers have requested double-digit premium increases for 2018. Based on initial filings, the change in benchmark silver premiums will likely range from -5% to 49% across these 21 major cities. These rates are still being reviewed by regulators and may change.

In the past, requested premiums have been similar, if not equal to, the rates insurers ultimately charge. This year, because of the uncertainty insurers face over whether the individual mandate will be enforced or cost-sharing subsidy payments will be made, some companies have included an additional rate increase in their initial rate requests, while other companies have said they may revise their premiums late in the process. It is therefore quite possible that the requested rates in this analysis will change between now and open enrollment.

Insurers attempting to price their plans and determine which states and counties they will service next year face a great deal of uncertainty. They must soon sign contracts locking in their premiums for the entire year of 2018, yet Congress or the Administration could make significant changes in the coming months to the law – or its implementation – that could lead to significant losses if companies have not appropriately priced for these changes. Insurers vary in the assumptions they make regarding the individual mandate and cost-sharing subsidies and the degree to which they are factoring this uncertainty into their rate requests.

Because most enrollees on the exchange receive subsidies, they will generally be protected from premium increases. Ultimately, most of the burden of higher premiums on exchanges falls on taxpayers. Middle and upper-middle income people purchasing their own coverage off-exchange, however, are not protected by subsidies and will pay the full premium increase, switch to a lower level plan, or drop their coverage. Although the individual market on average has been stabilizing, the concern remains that another year of steep premium increases could cause healthy people (particularly those buying off-exchange) to drop their coverage, potentially leading to further rate hikes or insurer exits.

JAMA Forum: Has Obamacare Become Trumpcare?

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://newsatjama.jama.com/2017/08/08/jama-forum-has-obamacare-become-trumpcare/?utm_campaign=KFF-2017-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=55126983&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8vj_o8hQsSTd-X9YaMl68R-qSign5oJJXs7kws6IQmZfKrthFZsdW-cMXbvwUyTxd2LsnB1OGj2fS4da5pKiDsoJnTHQ

Image result for medicaid

With the failure of several bills in the Senate to repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the effort to significantly remake the 2010 health law is apparently on hold, if not dead. This is a dramatic turn of events that few anticipated when Republicans took control of the White House and Congress after 7 years of vowing to repeal the ACA.

So, now what?

For the foreseeable future, all the ACA’s benefits and requirements stand—expanded Medicaid coverage for 11 million people, low-income adults; premium tax credits for about 9 million low- or middle-income people buying their own insurance; guaranteed insurance for people with preexisting conditions, and requirement that people buy insurance or pay a penalty.

The biggest question at this point is whether the Trump administration will pivot towards trying to make the law work, after the president said he might just “let Obamacare fail” to gain negotiating leverage in the repeal and replace debate.

This is without a doubt an awkward situation for President Trump and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price. They have bitterly criticized the ACA, and that was at some level understandable during the high-stakes Congressional debate. But now that the debate is over for the time being, the Trump administration is left running a government responsible for implementing the law.

What would it look like for the administration to run the ACA effectively?

Most immediately, open enrollment for the ACA’s marketplaces begins November 1, and insurers have to decide by late September whether they will participate. There are a host of actions the administration could take to make it successful.

Provide Clarity Around the Rules: There is still uncertainty as to whether the administration will enforce the individual mandate and continue to make $7 billion in cost-sharing subsidy payments to insurers—which have been in limbo because of threats from the administration to cut them off and a lawsuit brought by the House of Representatives challenging the authority to make them. This uncertainty is leading insurers to propose bigger premium increases than necessary to cover the anticipated growth in medical care expenses or, in some cases, to pull out of the market entirely. If the cost-sharing payments are stopped, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates that insurers would have to raise premiums by an additional 19% to offset the losses.

Maintaining Outreach and Consumer Assistance: There is enormous churn in the individual insurance market as people get or lose jobs with health benefits and see their incomes rise or fall. Millions of new people need to sign up for insurance each year just to maintain steady enrollment. Importantly, any decrease in enrollment is likely to be disproportionately among healthy people. So far, the administration has mostly taken steps to pare back outreach activities, cancelling ads at the conclusion of open enrollment for this year, and recently ending contracts for consumer assistance activities. It seems unlikely that President Trump will promote ACA enrollment on an online video show like “Between Two Ferns,” as President Obama did. However, a basic level of outreach is key to making the market function.

Encouraging Insurers to Participate: The ACA represents a market-based approach to health coverage, and insurers need to participate to make it work. The number of insurers selling in the marketplaces has dropped somewhat, as some carriers found they couldn’t compete and others were concerned that not enough healthy people were signing up to maintain a balanced risk pool. However, a recent KFF analysis suggests that insurers are doing much better financially this year in the individual market, following substantial premium increases. Still, there are currently 17 counties at risk of having no insurers participating in the marketplace for 2018 (out of a total of 3143), and that number could grow if uncertainty about cost-sharing payments and individual mandate enforcement persists. If there are no marketplace insurers in a county, there is no way for enrollees to access premium tax credits, and many would likely end up uninsured. The Trump administration has generally characterized insurer exits as a sign that the ACA is failing, rather than encouraging carriers to expand their service areas to fill in bare counties.

There are also ways the Trump administration can tweak the ACA through its executive powers, while still making a good faith effort to implement the law effectively.

In particular, the administration can give states flexibility to experiment through Medicaid waivers and ACA waivers under section 1332 of the law. These waivers have certain restrictions. For example, section 1332 waivers must be budget neutral for the federal government and provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable. And, certain provisions cannot be changed through waivers, such as guaranteed insurance for people with preexisting conditions and community rating (offering insurance at the same price regardless of a person’s health status). However, these waivers provide an opportunity to create a more state-based approach, which was a key goal for Republicans in the recent health care debate.

Congress could be pivotal, as well. Appropriation of funding for the cost-sharing payments to insurers could remove any ambiguity that they will be paid. Also, even if uncertainty about the cost-sharing payments and individual mandate is resolved, there are still pockets of the country, particularly in rural areas, where the individual insurance market is fragile. An infusion of federal funding to help cover the medical expenses of high-cost patients could lower premiums and bring stability to those markets. Sen Lamar Alexander (R, Tennessee), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, has announced plans to hold bipartisan hearings in early September with a goal to quickly pass legislation.

There are also potential political consequences to just allowing—or, in fact, pushing—the ACA to fail at this point. According to KFF polling, 59% of the public believes that the president and Republicans in Congress are now responsible for any ACA-related problems moving forward. So in much of the public’s view, particularly now that the Congressional debate has stalled, Obamacare may have become Trumpcare.