Tag Archives: Cost Sharing Reduction Payments

Republicans release new plan to lower health premiums, stabilize Obamacare markets

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

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/19/republicans-release-new-plan-lower-health-premiums-stabilize-obamacare-markets/439216002/

Image result for Republicans release new plan to lower health premiums, stabilize Obamacare markets

 Sen. Lamar Alexander and other congressional Republicans are pressing forward with their latest plan to stabilize Obamacare health insurance markets and help provide coverage for patients with high medical costs.

But while previous versions have had bipartisan support, Democrats are refusing to back the latest bill.

Alexander and three key Republicans filed legislation Monday that they said could provide coverage for an additional 3.2 million individuals and lower premiums by as much as 40 percent for people who don’t get their health insurance through the government or their employer.

Beginning in 2019, the bill would reinstate for three years the government subsidies paid to insurers that provide health-care coverage to low-income clients. It also would provide $30 billion in funding – $10 billion a year over three years – to help states set up high-risk insurance pools to provide coverage for people with high medical costs.

The proposal also would revise the Obamacare waiver process so that states will have more flexibility to design and regulate insurance plans. In addition, it would require the Department of Health and Human Services to issue regulations allowing insurers to sell plans across state lines.

“Our recommendations are based upon Senate and House proposals developed in several bipartisan hearings and roundtable discussions,” the proposal’s Republican sponsors said in a statement.

The bill is sponsored in the Senate by Alexander, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. The sponsors in the House are Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Ryan Costello, R-Penn.

The lawmakers are hoping to include the bill in a massive spending package that Congress is expected to take up by the end of the week. President Donald Trump told Alexander and Collins in a conference call over the weekend that he wants money to lower health insurance premiums included in the spending package.

The bill marks the latest attempt by lawmakers to offer short-term fixes that could bring some stability to the volatile health insurance markets created under the Affordable Care Act and help offset the higher insurance premiums expected to result from the repeal of the Obamacare requirement that most Americans buy insurance.

Alexander and the Senate health committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, struck a deal last fall to extend the cost-sharing subsidies for two years. Trump has halted the payments, established under the Affordable Care Act, which are worth around $7 billion each year.

But Murray and other Democrats are refusing to sign onto the latest proposal because it includes language that they say would expand the restrictions on federal funding of abortions.

“Senator Murray is disappointed that Republicans are rallying behind a new partisan bill that includes a last-minute, harmful restriction on abortion coverage for private insurance companies instead of working with Democrats to wrap up what have been bipartisan efforts to reduce health care costs,” said Murray’s spokeswoman, Helen Hare.

Murray “hopes the unexpected release of this partisan legislation isn’t a signal from Republicans that they have once again ended ongoing negotiations aimed at lowering families’ health care costs in favor of partisan politics, and that they come back to the table to finally get this done,” Hare said.

Republicans, meanwhile, pointed to an analysis by health care experts at the management consulting firm Oliver Wyman that compared the new proposal to what people in the individual market will pay if Congress fails to act.

The analysis showed that the package would reduce premiums by up to 40 percent in the individual market for farmers, small business owners and others who don’t buy their insurance from the government or their employer.

A self-employed plumber making $60,000, for example, may be paying $20,000 for health insurance now, but over time that insurance bill could be cut up to $8,000, the lawmakers said.

Preliminary projections from the Congressional Budget Office indicated that the plan could be adopted without adding to the federal debt.

 

Back to the Health Policy Drawing Board

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

Image result for Back to the Health Policy Drawing Board

The Affordable Care Act needs help. After scores of failed repeal attempts, Congress enacted legislation late last year that eliminated one of the law’s central features, the mandate requiring people to buy insurance.

Obamacare, as the Affordable Care Act is widely known, isn’t in imminent danger of collapse, but the mandate’s repeal poses a serious long-term threat.

To understand that threat and how it might be parried, it’s helpful to consider why the United States has relied so heavily on employer-provided insurance — and why it has not yet adopted a form of the universal coverage seen in most other countries.

First, some basics on private insurance: It works well only when many people, each with a low risk of loss, buy in. Most homeowners buy fire insurance, for example, and only a small fraction file claims annually. A modest premium can therefore cover large losses sustained by a few.

But because of what economists call the adverse-selection problem, this model can easily break down for private health insurance. People typically know more about their own health risks than insurers do, making those most at risk more likely to purchase insurance.

This drives premiums up, making insurance still less attractive to the healthiest people. That, in turn, causes many to drop out, producing the fabled “death spiral” in which only the least healthy people remain insured. But at that point, private health insurance may no longer be viable, because annual treatment costs for serious illnesses often exceed several hundred thousand dollars.

Most nations have solved this problem by adopting universal coverage financed by taxes. The United States probably would have followed this approach except for a historical anomaly during World War II. Fearing runaway inflation in tight labor markets, the American government imposed a cap on wages.

But the cap didn’t apply to fringe benefits, which employers quickly exploited as a recruiting tool. Employer health plans proved particularly attractive, since their cost was a deductible expense and they were not taxed. Before the war started, only 9 percent of workers had employer-provided insurance, but 63 percent had it by 1953.

To be eligible for favorable tax treatment, companies were required to make their plans available to all employees, which mitigated the adverse-selection problem. People would lose insurance if they lost their jobs, which inhibited labor mobility, but since employment relationships were relatively durable in the postwar years, this arrangement worked well enough.

But after peaking at almost 70 percent in the 1990s, employer coverage began declining in the face of stagnating wages and rising insurance costs. By 2010, only 56 percent of the nonelderly American population still had workplace health plans.

Even so, because more than 100 million Americans still had such plans and were reasonably satisfied with them, the Obama administration opted to build health reform atop the existing system. In addition to allowing people to keep their existing employer coverage, Obamacare expanded eligibility for Medicaid and established exchanges in which people without employer plans could buy insurance.

At the outset, Obamacare had three central features:

• Insurers could not charge higher prices to people with pre-existing conditions.

• Those without coverage had to pay a penalty to the government (the “mandate”).

• Low-income people would be eligible for subsidies.

The first two provisions were necessary to prevent the death spiral, and government couldn’t mandate insurance purchases without adding subsidies for the poor.

Despite a bumpy rollout and some frustrations over shrinking choices and rising prices at health care exchanges, Obamacare was working remarkably well by most important metrics. Program costs were much lower than expected, and the uninsured rate among nonelderly Americans fell sharply — from 18.2 percent in 2010 to only 10.3 percent in 2018.

This progress is now imperiled.

The mandate — by far the program’s least popular provision — was repealed as part of tax legislation passed in December 2017. And because economists predict that its absence will slowly rekindle the insurance death spiral, we’re forced back to the policy drawing board.

The most common response has been to call for a variant of the single-payer systems employed by most other countries, which promise dramatic reductions in health costs.

The United States spends far more on health care than any other nation, yet gets worse outcomes on most measures. In part this is because administrative and marketing expenses are much lower under single-payer plans. But by far the most important source of savings is that governments are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. Virtually every procedure, test, and drug costs substantially more here than elsewhere.

An American hospital stay, for example, costs more than twelve times as much as one in the Netherlands. The single-payer approach also sidesteps the thorny mandate objection by covering everyone out of tax revenue.

A June 2017 poll showed that 60 percent of Americans said the government should provide universal coverage, and support for single-payer insurance rose more than one-third since 2014.

Yet a move to a single-payer system faces the same hurdle that shaped Obamacare: Millions of Americans would resist any attempt to take their employer-provided plans away. And although single-payer health care would be far less costly overall, it would be paid for by taxes — the most visible form of sacrifice — rather than by the implicit levies that underwrite employer coverage.

From a purely economic standpoint, the increased tax burden is irrelevant. It’s a truism that making the economic pie larger necessarily makes it possible for everyone to get a larger slice than before. And because the gains from single-payer insurance would be so large, there must be ways to make everyone come out ahead, even in the short run.

The Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, for example, has proposed the introduction of Medicare Part E (Medicare for Everyone), which would allow anyone to buy into Medicare, regardless of age. The program’s budget would be supported in part by levies on employers that don’t offer insurance.

The cost savings inherent in this form of single-payer coverage would lead more and more firms to abandon their current plans voluntarily. Gradually, the age for standard Medicare eligibility also would fall until the entire population was covered by it. The Center for American Progress has now introduced a similar proposal.

It’s critical to realize that there are attractive paths forward. In no other wealthy country do we see people organize bake sales to help pay for a neighbor’s cancer care. We can avoid this national embarrassment without requiring painful sacrifices from anyone.

 

 

Obamacare insurers just had their best year ever — despite Trump

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

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/17/obamacare-insurers-2017-profit-analysis-422559

Flyers promoting Blue Cross Blue Shield are pictured. | AP Photo

A new POLITICO analysis finds many health plans turned a profit for the first time as GOP fumbled repeal.

Obamacare is no longer busting the bank for insurers.

After three years of financial bloodletting under the law — and despite constant repeal threats and efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle it — many of the remaining insurers made money on individual health plans for the first time last year, according to a POLITICO analysis of financial filings for 29 regional Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, often the dominant player in their markets.

The biggest reason for the improvement is simple: big premium spikes. The Blue plans increased premiums by more than 25 percent on average in 2017, meaning many insurers charged enough to cover their customers’ medical costs for the first time since the Affordable Care Act marketplaces launched in 2014 with robust coverage requirements.

“2017 was the first year we got our head above water in the individual market since the ACA passed,” said Steven Udvarhelyi, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana.

However, one good year won’t ease the trepidation many insurers feel as they start planning for 2019. After knocking out the law’s individual mandate and a subsidy program worth billions of dollars to insurers late last year, the Trump administration is soon expected to finalize rules making it easier to buy cheaper plans exempt from some Obamacare rules.

“I don’t think we’ve turned the corner,” said Kurt Kossen, president of retail markets at Health Care Service Corporation, which operates Blue plans in five states. The insurer lost $2.5 billion on its individual market business during Obamacare’s first three years, he noted. “One year of being able to make a profit out of four certainly is not a stable market,” he said.

“They understand the risks of the market better now than they did at the start of the ACA exchanges,” said Deep Banerjee, an analyst with Standard & Poor’s who has written extensively about the marketplaces.

The gains were particularly notable among some of the biggest insurers. Health Care Service Corporation spent 77.7 percent of premiums on medical claims, an improvement of 18.5 percentage points over the prior year. Similarly, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina saw its margin improve by just over 10 percentage points.

But not all insurers have figured out how to make money in the troubled markets, which have failed to attract enough young and healthy customers to function effectively in many states. Of the 29 insurers analyzed, eight plans spent more than 90 percent of premium revenues on medical costs last year, meaning they almost certainly lost money in the marketplaces.

The POLITICO analysis provides a snapshot of financial performance in the marketplaces in 2017, not a definitive portrait. Combined, the 29 Blue plans had 4.5 million individual market customers at the end of last year, accounting for about one-fifth of the total market for people who buy their own coverage.

The healthier balance sheets are a welcome development for insurers after three years of major Obamacare losses, estimated at more than $15 billion by McKinsey. That led many national insurers, including UnitedHealth Group and Aetna, to flee the law’s marketplaces, in some cases leaving Blue Cross Blue Shield plans as the only option for customers.

But their improved financial fortunes could also complicate efforts to convince Republican lawmakers to support an Obamacare stabilization package as part of the massive spending bill Congress is trying pass by March 23. Lawmakers are looking to add new funds to help insurers with especially sick customers and restore a subsidy program known as cost-sharing reductions that helps insurers pay medical bills for their low-income customers.

However, a dispute over abortion language is holding up the Obamacare package in Congress. And many conservatives are wary of providing more funding to prop up the marketplaces, deriding it as a bailout for insurance companies.

“The rates can stay low without these payments,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, regarding the cost-sharing reductions that President Donald Trump cut last fall.

Insurers argue that looking at financial performance over a single year is misleading, and they say they’ve been repeatedly blindsided by changes to the law. For instance, because of budgetary restraints Republicans demanded, insurers haven’t received an expected $12 billion from a program meant to help them cover particularly expensive customers. Dozens of insurers are now suing the federal government to recover payments.

“If you don’t want to stabilize the current market, what’s your solution?” Udvarhelyi said. “The fact that we’ve hung in there losing hundreds of millions of dollars is a testament to the fact that we do care, but we need responsible action on the part of policymakers right now.”

Patrick Conway, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, points out his company would have kept 2018 premiums flat if Trump hadn’t eliminated the cost-sharing subsidy. Instead, the insurer jacked up rates by an average of 13 percent to make up for the lost funding.

“We’re dedicated to having the lowest possible premiums for our customers, and market stabilization would help us have the lowest possible premiums,” Conway said. “I’ve been traveling around the state and people are really worried about the cost.”

As insurers start to crunch the numbers on 2019 premiums, they will have to account for uncertainty over congressional funding and recent steps taken by the Trump administration weakening Obamacare. The elimination of the requirement to purchase insurance, which takes effect in 2019, and the administration’s efforts to make it easier to sell cheaper, skinnier plans that don’t meet Obamacare’s coverage requirements, are likely to further destabilize the markets.

The insurers’ biggest concern is fewer healthy individuals will buy Obamacare plans, either going without coverage, since they’ll no longer face a fine next year, or buying a new cheaper plan that covers far less.

“These things will chip away at the market,” S&P’s Banerjee said. “It’s not going to get meaningfully worse, but it doesn’t get any better.”

Insurers are warning that they’ll again have to jack up rates in 2019 if Congress doesn’t take action to stabilize the markets. A study from California’s marketplace suggests premium spikes around the country are likely to range from 16 to 30 percent next year. That means many Obamacare customers could be facing sticker shock just weeks before heading to the polls.

Polling has consistently shown that Republicans will shoulder most of the blame for future problems in Obamacare, since they’re fully in charge of the federal government. That could spur them to begrudgingly take action to tamp down premium increases, despite their disdain for the health care law.

“I think the people in charge, whether it’s fair or not, will probably [get the blame],” said Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. “Everybody’s prices are going up. We’re going to have to figure out some way to improve it.”

 

 

Geisinger reports net income increase despite issues with ACA health plan

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

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/geisinger-reports-net-income-increase-despite-issues-with-aca-health-plan/518298/

Image result for geisinger health system

Dive Brief:

  • In a new financial report, Geisinger Health System reported a gain of nearly $200 million in net income to $324.9 million for the first half of fiscal year 2018 compared to the previous year, for an excess margin of 9%.
  • Operating income for the first six months was up from $51.9 million a year ago to $61.2 million in the current fiscal year and net revenue increased 8.1% to $3.3 billion. However, Geisinger’s operating margin dropped from 3% for the first three months of the fiscal year to 1.8% through half the year.
  • One area of concern for the integrated healthcare system was its Affordable Care Act (ACA) health plan. Geisinger Health Plan (GHP) struggled after the company didn’t get $11 million in cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments following President Donald Trump’s decision to stop payments in October.

Dive Insight:

Geisinger’s net revenue growth is connected to an increase in net patient service revenue after the provision for bad debts of nearly 5% and an increase in premium revenue of 11%.

“Net patient service revenue benefited from the realization of growth plans centered on market share growth and the opportunistic capture of high-acuity, clinical service volumes. Premium revenue benefited primarily from rate increases,” Geisinger said in the report.

ACA marketplace volatility, namely the end of CSR payments, as well as higher utilization affected GHP. The company believes the higher utilization is connected to GHP members concerned they would lose coverage if Congress repealed the ACA. Despite Congress’ and the president’s threats and a few close votes, the repeal didn’t happen. But before that effort stalled, Geisinger said many members got healthcare services just in case.

“Similarly, provider tiering in benefit plan changes for self-insured employees were announced in the fall of 2017. These benefit changes caused certain employees to accelerate medical services through providers that fall under higher out-of-pocket tiers beginning Jan. 1, 2018. These one-time impacts, while negatively affecting second-quarter results, are expected to improve operating profits beginning in the third fiscal quarter,” Geisinger said in the report.

Geisinger expects to resolve the CSR non-payment issue this year after raising the average premium rate by 31% to help offset the loss of payments. GHP also gained more than 20,000 members in its exchange plans, a 39% increase, for 2018, which should help offset losses.

GHP had 559,643 members in its health plans through the first half, which was a 0.4% increase compared to a year ago.

Concerning utilization, Geisinger had an increase of 3.5% in discharges and 2.6% in discharges and observations/23-hour stays compared to a year ago. “This growth was attributable to success in expanding clinical programs. Based solely upon hospitals controlled for two years or more, Geisinger experienced a 2.9% increase in discharges when compared to the year-earlier period,” the report states.

However, percent of occupancy based on physically available beds dipped from 60.2% to 59.9%.

Meanwhile, outpatient visits were on the rise. Outpatient emergency room visits increased from nearly 174,000 the previous year to almost 181,000 in fiscal 2018. Clinic outpatient visits increased from 1.65 million to 1.77 million.

Geisinger is the latest nonprofit to offer updates about finances. Over the past week, other major nonprofits have released financial information, including:

All had positive notes in their reports. Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic said operating income and revenue bounced back in 2017 after rough numbers in the previous year. UPMC said its clinical and insurance sides had strong performances as net income hit $1.3 billion. Profits for these companies have been scrutinized as critics question whether they are giving enough back to their communities as nonprofit organizations.

UPDATE: CMS seeks expansion of short-term plans to sidestep ACA

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

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cms-seeks-expansion-of-aca-skirting-short-term-plans/517399/

Image result for Out of Pocket expenses

Dive Brief:

  • HHS issued a proposed rule on Tuesday that expands the availability of short-term health insurance by allowing the purchase of plans providing coverage for up to 12 months, the latest in the Trump administration’s plans to weaken the Affordable Care Act. The action builds off a request for information by HHS last June on ways to increase affordability of health insurance.
  • The current maximum period for such plans is less than three months, a change made by the Obama administration in 2016. The proposed rule would mark a return to the pre-2016 era, but CMS noted that it is seeking comment on offering short-term plans for periods longer than 12 months.
  • Short-term plans are not required to comply with federal rules for individual health insurance under the ACA, so the plans could charge more for those with preexisting conditions and not provide what the ACA deemed essential health benefits like maternity care.

Dive Insight:

The proposed rule builds off of an executive order President Donald Trump signed in October, which instructed the federal government to explore more access to association health plans, expanding short-term limited duration plans and changes to health reimbursement arrangements or HRAs.

Consumers buying these short-terms plans could lose access to certain healthcare services and providers and experience an increase in out-of-pocket expenditures for some patients, according to the proposal.

The short-term plans “would be unlikely to include all the elements of ACA-compliant plans, such as the preexisting condition exclusion prohibition, coverage of essential health benefits without annual or lifetime dollar limits, preventive care, maternity and prescription drug coverage, rating restrictions and guaranteed renewability,” according to the proposed rule.

The Trump administration argues that expanding access to short-term plans is increasingly important due to rising premiums in the individual markets.

But if young and healthy people leave the individual market for short-term plans, it could contribute to an unbalanced risk pool. HHS itself states that the exodus of young and healthy exchange members could contribute to rising premiums within the ACA exchange markets.

“If individual market single risk pools change as a result, it would result in an increase in premiums for the individuals remaining in those risk pools,” the proposed rule stated.

But when asked about concerns that the idea might hurt the stability of the ACA marketplaces by siphoning healthy people away, CMS Administrator Seema Verma argued there would be little impact.

“No, we don’t think there’s any validity to that — based on our projections only a very small number of healthy people will shift from the individual market to these short-term limited duration plans. Specifically, we estimate that only 100,000 to 200,000 people will shift. And this shift will have will have virtually no impact on the individual market premiums,” Verma said on a press call.

But the insurance lobby cautioned that the action could increase insurance prices for the most vulnerable.

The American Hospital Association and Association for Community Affiliated Plans also slammed the short-term plans, saying they would increase the cost of comprehensive coverage.

“Short-term, limited-duration health plans have a role for consumers who experience gaps in coverage. They are not unlike the small spare tire in a car: they get the job done for short periods of time, but they have severe limitations and you’ll get in trouble if you drive too fast on them,” ACAP CEO Margaret Murray said in a statement.

“While we are reviewing the proposed rule to understand its impact on the people we serve, we remain concerned that expanded use of short-term policies could further fragment the individual market, which would lead to higher premiums for many consumers, particularly those with pre-existing conditions,” said Kristine Grow, SVP of communications at America’s Health Insurance Plans.

HHS anticipates most individuals switching from individual market plans to short-term coverage plans would be relatively young or healthy and not eligible to receive ACA’s premium tax credits.

CMS said the proposal is one to help the 28 million Americans without health insurance, pointing to the 6.7 million who chose to pay the individual mandate penalty in 2015 as evidence that ACA-compliant plans are too expensive.

“In a market that is experiencing double-digit rate increases, allowing short-term, limited-duration insurance to cover longer periods gives Americans options and could be the difference between someone getting coverage or going without coverage at all,” Verma said in a statement.

Senate HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., praised the action, but cautioned that states still have a responsibility to protect consumers.

“Millions of Americans who are between jobs and who pay for their own insurance will welcome this extended option for lower-cost, short-term policies. States will have the responsibility for making sure these policies benefit consumers,” Alexander said in a statement.

Democrats largely oppose the move, arguing it will further destabilize the market for millions of Americans in the ACA exchanges. “Widespread marketing of these bare bones, junk plans will further destabilize health insurance markets, and will lead to higher premiums for everyone,” a group of House Democrats said in a joint statement.

As Republicans are not likely to take up ACA repeal again any time soon, the Trump administration has been working to pare back the law in the past several months. It halved the enrollment period and stopped paying cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers. Also, the recent tax overhaul included a repeal of the law’s requirement that most people have coverage.

House GOP warming to ObamaCare fix

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

House GOP warming to ObamaCare fix

Image result for aca stabilization

Key House Republicans are warming to a proposal aimed at bringing down ObamaCare premiums, raising the chances of legislative action this year to stabilize the health-care law.

House GOP aides and lobbyists say that top House Republicans are interested in funding what is known as reinsurance. The money could be included in a coming bipartisan government funding deal or in another legislative vehicle.

Any action from Republicans to stabilize ObamaCare would be a major departure from the party’s long crusade against the law, but after having failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year, the discussion is shifting.

Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) is one of the leaders of the push in the House and is sponsoring a bill to provide ObamaCare stability funding in 2019 and 2020. He notes the relatively short-term nature of his measure.

“That reflects the political reality that we are not going to be doing some large, sweeping health-care bill in the next year,” said Costello, who faces a competitive reelection race this year.

“I am optimistic that it would be under serious consideration for inclusion in the omnibus,” he added.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) noted the possibility of action on an ObamaCare stability measure, particularly funding for reinsurance, at an event in Wisconsin in January, saying he thought there could be a “bipartisan opportunity” on the issue.

Action on the reinsurance payments is far from certain; conservative opposition to what some view as a bailout of ObamaCare insurers could stop the proposal in its tracks. But there is growing momentum for the idea, and Republicans said the proposal would likely be discussed more at the GOP retreat this week in West Virginia.

The push on reinsurance matches up with one of the ObamaCare bills that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has been pushing in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave Collins a commitment to support a reinsurance bill as well as another stability measure from Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in exchange for Collins’s support for tax reform in December.

Opposition in the House has always been the major impediment to those measures moving forward. But it now appears some of that resistance is softening, at least on the reinsurance measure, now that Republicans have repealed ObamaCare’s individual mandate through the tax bill.

Importantly, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), whose panel has jurisdiction, is supporting the ObamaCare stabilization efforts and backs Costello’s bill.

“Chairman Walden is supportive of Rep. Costello’s efforts to help states repair their insurance markets that have been damaged by Obamacare,” an Energy and Commerce spokesperson wrote in an email. “Rep. Costello’s bill is a fair approach to granting states greater flexibility to help patients and lower costs.”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the fourth-ranking Republican in House leadership, is also a co-sponsor of Costello’s stabilization bill.

While House conservatives have opposed propping up ObamaCare, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) did not dismiss the payments out of hand on Tuesday.

“If it lowers premiums, I’m willing to listen to any ideas,” said Meadows, who is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

He warned that he did not want a proposal to be an “insurance bailout,” but noted that he has been talking to colleagues in the House and Senate about the issue.

Another obstacle for an ObamaCare fix is a dispute over abortion. Republicans are adamant that a stabilization measure must include restrictions on the new funding being used to cover abortion services, a notion that is problematic for Democrats.

Reinsurance funding is used to help insurers cover the costs of especially sick patients, which helps relieve pressure on premiums for the broader group of enrollees.

The other main stabilization measure, from Alexander and Murray, would fund ObamaCare payments that reimburse insurers for giving discounts to low-income enrollees, known as cost-sharing reductions (CSRs).

Republican sources say there is less momentum in the House for funding CSRs than there is for the reinsurance measure. But even some Democrats are now questioning whether funding CSRs still makes sense, given that through a quirk in the law, President Trump’s cancellation of the payments last year actually led to increased subsidies and lower premiums for many enrollees.

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), for example, a leading House Republican on health-care issues as co-chairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus, said Tuesday that he feels negatively about the idea of funding CSRs but likes the idea of reinsurance.

Roe pushed back on the idea that the funding would be propping up ObamaCare, saying that the repeal of the individual mandate had changed the discussion because people no longer were forced to buy coverage.

Roe said he runs into people in his district paying more than $1,000 per month in premium costs.

“We’re going to have to do something,” he said.

Podcast: ‘What The Health?’ While You Were Celebrating …

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

https://khn.org/news/podcast-what-the-health-while-you-were-celebrating/?utm_campaign=KFF-2018-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=59811229&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–JERFINvucriGGpU1rflJEeJxuQPVDm8Wxcl7b-PGXeAoVUch8Oz-J5zdRyTzl09wIqr9zHKJO6Lrp-P6xvIdaGh3oKQ&_hsmi=59811229

Image result for Podcast: ‘What The Health?’ While You Were Celebrating …

The year in health policy has already begun: The Trump administration Thursday released a long-awaited regulation aimed at making it easier for small businesses and others to form “association health plans.” Now advocates and opponents will be able to weigh in with more specific recommendations.

Meanwhile, in December, the health policy focus was on the tax bill and its repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate” penalty for most people who don’t have health insurance. But some recent key court decisions could reshape the benefits millions of people receive as part of their health coverage.

This week’s “What the Health?” guests are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post, Alice Ollstein of Talking Points Memo and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

They discuss these topics, as well as the prospects for pending health legislation on Capitol Hill.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • The Trump administration’s decision to expand association health plans faces a number of obstacles, including the lack of good oversight in many states and the poor track record of many past plans.
  • Consumer advocates fear that growth of association plans could leave many consumers without adequate benefits because some plans will not cover the same essential benefits that Obamacare plans guarantee. They also are concerned that healthy customers will migrate to the new plans and leave the ACA’s marketplace plans with an abundance of enrollees who are ill.
  • The prospects of the bill to stabilize the individual insurance market sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) appear to be dimming.
  • Two federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration rule to change the ACA’s contraception mandate. The decisions, though, are not based on the policy but on faulty rule-making.
  • In another highly watched court case, a federal judge has ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has until 2019 to set new rules on what employers can require of workers in their wellness programs.

Credit rating agency, researchers give vote of confidence to health insurance sector

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

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/financial-performance-a-m-best-kaiser-family-foundation-insurers?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTjJRNU5qUXlZVEJqWmpjNCIsInQiOiJOR2V2bEp4NkdoeVB3VndhZE43TVBjZXdaTGJcLzk1Z3hBd1wvZ05teDMrcjZ5UzJhb0tzUkpQbWlaSmVvUmJFazVDcERmajBTREhCTXJxR3BBaGtoY1MrZlVtQW5xeXRSbFwvYVhPOE44VE9uYUhNZWNnbGtoR3c3S0xHUlp5SlwvS2kifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Health insurance, pen and stethoscope

Two new reports offer evidence that policy uncertainty aside, the health insurance industry is doing just fine.

In one report, A.M. Best explains why it decided to change its outlook for the health insurance sector from negative to stable. The credit rating agency said the change “reflects a variety of factors that have led to improvement in earnings and risk-adjusted capitalization.”

While insurers have experienced losses in the individual exchange business, this market segment has improved in 2016 and 2017—in part due to consecutive years of high rate increases, a narrowing of provider networks and a stabilizing exchange population, the report said.

A.M. Best also predicted that Congress won’t make repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act a high priority in 2018. And even if it does, health insurers will have time to make adjustments, since legislative changes won’t take effect for two or more years.

The rating agency’s findings about the individual market echo those of a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which examined insurers’ financial data from the third quarter of 2017.

It found that insurers saw significant improvement in their medical loss ratios, which averaged 81% through the third quarter. Gross margins per member per month in the individual market segment followed a similar pattern, jumping up to $79 per enrollee in the third quarter of 2017 from a recent third-quarter low of $10 in 2015.

One caveat is that KFF’s findings reflect insurer performance only through September—before the Trump administration stopped reimbursing insurers for cost-sharing subsidies. “The loss of these payments during the fourth quarter of 2017 will diminish insurer profits, but nonetheless, insurers are likely to see better financial results in 2017 than they did in earlier years of the ACA marketplaces,” KFF said.

As promising as these observations about the individual market are, A.M. Best pointed out that this market segment is just a small portion of most health insurers’ earnings and revenues. In fact, health plans largely owe their overall profitability to the combined operating results of the employer group, Medicaid and Medicare Advantage lines of business.

Looking ahead, the agency predicted that Medicare and Medicaid business lines will remain profitable for insurers—though margins will likely compress for both. It said the employer group segment will also remain profitable, but noted that membership will continue to be flat.

 

Push for return to ACA repeal

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

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/aca/repeal-coalition-mcconnell-scalise-hatch-congress?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpreE9HSTFPVFJqWldZMSIsInQiOiJNM0NTa1ZBZW1kU001bkx4SEcwNmtSeEFVNG9oZnpUbEF2UVpMY1lDUWNZYm8zZTFuejJNUGpPOTJuYVlXTlZwWHdXU1hrRm50Z1NFbHJGRjdUMld6U1JoYWo0enNaUlEzNldab2tcL3hxV3NPaTBlK2xKbmVSQmgwMTE2NFZpYzgifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Affordable Care Act highlighted

While lawmakers’ most pressing priority right now is to prevent a government shutdown, it’s not too early to start asking: Is the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act over?

The answer to that question, however, depends upon which Republican you ask.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that while he wants to unwind more of the healthcare law, he’s doubtful that Republicans will have enough votes to do so now that their majority has gotten even slimmer.

But others on the right are pushing to keep the repeal effort alive. Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Tuesday that one of the GOP’s major goals this year is to tackle welfare reform, but “then we’re going to have to work on healthcare again.”

“Look, I’m for repealing and replacing Obamacare,” he said during an interview with Fox & Friends, later adding, “So let’s get back to work on some of those things—like what we passed in the House, that almost passed in the Senate—so that we can get our healthcare system working again [and] rebuild the private marketplace.”

The GOP is also facing external pressure. A collection of conservative groups known as the “Repeal Coalition” sent a letter Tuesday to President Donald Trump, saying that now that he’s reformed the tax code, he now must “deliver on the rest of the promises made to the American people to free them from the shackles of Obamacare.”

Thus, the letter said, healthcare reform must be the focus of lawmakers’ budget reconciliation instructions for 2019. The Trump administration must also help the Senate and the House “design a bill that can muster the votes needed for passage of true health reform,” it added.

Whichever path that Republicans choose to take regarding the ACA this year, however, they will do so without a veteran senator who has played a major role in healthcare policymaking. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, announced Tuesday that he will not run for an eighth term.

Hatch, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has opposed the ACA and criticized a bill drafted by Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray that was designed to stabilize the law. In fact, he floated an alternative to the Alexander-Murray bill that would both temporarily fund cost-sharing reduction payments and ax the individual and employer mandates. Ultimately, he helped repeal the individual mandate via the GOP’s tax reform package.

Hatch also has a history of bipartisanship, however. He was often forced to work with Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy when they led what is now known as the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. One of their biggest achievements was creating the Children’s Health Insurance Program—though that program is now on shaky ground since Congress let federal funding for it lapse last fall and has since failed to reauthorize it.

 

 

From premiums to politics: 5 predictions for the health insurance industry in 2018

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

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/year-preview-predictions-politics-aca-mergers?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpreE9HSTFPVFJqWldZMSIsInQiOiJNM0NTa1ZBZW1kU001bkx4SEcwNmtSeEFVNG9oZnpUbEF2UVpMY1lDUWNZYm8zZTFuejJNUGpPOTJuYVlXTlZwWHdXU1hrRm50Z1NFbHJGRjdUMld6U1JoYWo0enNaUlEzNldab2tcL3hxV3NPaTBlK2xKbmVSQmgwMTE2NFZpYzgifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Businessman uses a crystal ball

After the demise of two major insurer mergers and multiple Affordable Care Act repeal attempts, few could argue that 2017 wasn’t an eventful year for the health insurance industry.

But 2018 is shaping up to be just as interesting—complete with more political wrangling, M&A intrigue and evidence that, despite all this uncertainty, insurers are pushing ahead and embracing innovation.

Read on for our predictions about what’s in store for the industry in the coming months.

1. The CVS-Aetna deal will have a domino effect in the healthcare industry

While the lines between payer, provider and pharmacy benefits manager have been blurring for a while now, CVS’ $69 billion deal to purchase Aetna is undoubtedly a game-changer.

The move was likely motivated by a desire to compete with UnitedHealth’s thriving Optum subsidiary, which has its own PBM and an increasing presence in care delivery. So it stands to reason that other major insurers will try to strike deals of their own that mimic that scale and level of diversification.

Already, Humana has made a bid to purchase part of hospice- and home-health giant Kindred Healthcare. There’s also been speculation that it is preparing to be acquired—possibly by Cigna, or in a deal that would mimic CVS-Aetna, Walmart or Walgreens.

Other insurers may also seek to build PBM capabilities, following in the footsteps of UnitedHealth, a combined CVS-Aetna and Anthem, which announced in October that it would team up with CVS to create an in-house PBM called IngenioRx.

It’s certainly possible, however, that CVS’ purchase of Aetna will not pass regulatory muster. While it would require less divestment than the ill-fated Anthem-Cigna and Aetna-Humana deals, the DOJ’s decision to block another vertical deal—between AT&T and Time Warner—doesn’t bode well for its chances.

2. Republicans and Democrats will be forced to work together on ACA fixes

With one less Republican senator—thanks to Alabama’s election of Democrat Doug Jones—the GOP likely won’t have the votes to pass a repeal bill without bipartisan support. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged as much before Congress’ holiday recess, though he clarified the next day that he would be happy to pass an ACA repeal bill if there are enough votes for it.

McConnell also owes Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, as he had promised her he’d pass her reinsurance bill and a bill that would fund cost-sharing reduction payments this year. While Collins held up her end of the bargain—voting for the GOP tax bill—the ACA fixes didn’t make it into the stopgap spending bill Congress passed on Dec. 21.

Democrats, meanwhile, will also be motivated to reach across the aisle. The repeal of the individual mandate will likely put the ACA on more unstable footing, lending more urgency than ever to the task of shoring up the exchanges.

Both parties will also likely face pressure from the healthcare industry’s biggest lobbying groups to get some sort of ACA fix passed. The push to do so, however, will be complicated by the full slate of legislative priorities Congress is facing in the new year, including reauthorizing funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

3. There will be more premium hikes and insurer exits in the individual market

The individual mandate is now gone, and arguments about its effectiveness aside, that was one of the mechanisms that encouraged healthy people to buy insurance and stay covered. Even if the effect on coverage levels is minimal, the move is probably going to be enough to push risk-averse insurers to raise rates and even exit more rating areas in 2019.

There is also little indication that large insurers that have exited will come back anytime soon. After all, why invest resources in an unstable market when there are far more steady and lucrative markets like Medicare Advantage?

Adding to the policy uncertainty for the remaining insurers, there is no guarantee that Congress will authorize short-term funding for cost-sharing reduction payments. Many insurers raised their 2018 rates to account for the possibility of them disappearing—which turned out to be a wise move—so it stands to reason they’d have to do the same for 2019.

Perhaps the best harbinger of what’s to come came from a study conducted in November, which noted that the actions insurers and state regulators took to fill in “bare counties” on the ACA exchanges are “temporary and unsustainable without long-term federal action.” And with Republicans in charge, federal action to patch up the exchanges is unlikely.

4. Federal agencies will start to carry out Trump’s executive order—and states will push back

Although it was overshadowed by all the repeal-and-replace drama, Trump’s healthcare-focused executive order has huge implications for the industry. Put simply, it paves the way for expanded use of association health plans, short-term health plans and employer-based health reimbursement arrangements.

In 2018, we’re likely to see the relevant agencies start issuing rules to implement the order, which could dramatically change the individual market as we know it—and not for the better. Such rulemaking would also set the stage for a power struggle between the federal government and left-leaning states.

In fact, a coalition of healthcare organizations have urged state insurance commissioners to take steps to override any rules resulting from the executive order. For example, states could restore the three-month limit on short-term health plans if agencies unwind that Obama-era rule on the federal level.

Since only certain states are likely to heed these suggestions, the upshot of Trump’s executive order will be to create a patchwork of individual market rules across the country. If that sounds strangely like what the individual insurance markets were like before the ACA, well, that’s precisely the point.

5. Payers’ move to value-based payment models will continue, with or without the feds leading the way

On the one hand, the Trump administration clearly wants to scale back the federal government’s role in pushing payers and providers away from fee-for-service payment models. The surest sign was CMS’ announcement late last year that it would endmandatory bundled payment models for hip fractures and cardiac care.

Some have worried that moving away from those mandatory programs would be a setback for the move to value-based payments, given that the feds play a powerful role in galvanizing the industry to change. In addition, the administration wants to take the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in a “new direction”—one that CMS Administrator Seema Verma said would “move away from the assumption that Washington can engineer a more efficient healthcare system from afar.”

But even if the federal government will take a lighter touch in the move from volume to value, it’s not likely that the private sector will take that as a cue to reverse course. On the payer side, especially, too many industry-leading companies have invested heavily in alternative payment models to turn back now. And they have compelling business reasons to keep investing in those models, given their potential to lower costs and improve care quality.