Tag Archives: Essential Health Benefits

Trump could make waves with health-care order

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

Trump could make waves with health-care order

Image result for essential health benefits

President Trump’s planned executive order on ObamaCare is worrying supporters of the law and insurers, who fear it could undermine the stability of ObamaCare.

Trump’s order, expected as soon as this week, would allow small businesses or other groups of people to band together to buy health insurance. Some fear that these association health plans would not be subject to the same rules as ObamaCare plans, including those that protect people with pre-existing conditions.

That would make these plans cheaper for healthy people, potentially luring them away from the ObamaCare market. The result could be that only sicker, costlier people remain in ObamaCare plans, leading to a spike in premiums.

“If this executive order is anything like the rumors then it could have a huge impact on stability of the individual insurance market,” said Larry Levitt, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Andy Slavitt, a former top health-care official in the Obama administration, warned that insurers could drop out of the Affordable Care Act markets because of the order.

“I am now hearing that the Executive Order may cause insurers to leave ACA markets right away,” Slavitt tweeted on Sunday.

Slavitt argues the order is part of Trump’s broader effort to undermine ObamaCare. He said the order could accomplish through executive action what Congress failed to do through legislation.

But supporters say Trump’s move could unleash the free market and lower prices for consumers.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been pushing for the order, arguing it is something Trump can do without Congress to give people an alternative to ObamaCare.

“This is something I’ve been advocating for six months,” Paul said on MSNBC in late September.

“I think it’s bigger than Graham-Cassidy, it’s bigger than any reform we’ve even talked about to date, but hasn’t gotten enough attention,” Paul added, referring to the failed Republican repeal-and-replace bill co-sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.).

Paul said allowing more people to band together to purchase health insurance gives them more leverage to lower premiums than when people are buying coverage on their own.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), which has long opposed ObamaCare, supports expanding association health plans and has been advocating for action.

“Allowing people more affordable arrangements is not a bad thing,” said Kevin Kuhlman, director of government relations at the NFIB. He said fears about undermining ObamaCare markets are “overblown.” His group is waiting to review the details of the order, which he said he expects to be issued on Thursday.

Association health plans already exist, but Trump’s order could allow them to expand and get around ObamaCare rules, creating plans that are only for healthy people.

Experts pointed to the Tennessee Farm Bureau, which currently offers an association health plan in the state that, through a loophole, does not have to follow ObamaCare rules.

The plan has about 73,000 enrollees and may be one of the reasons that Tennessee’s ObamaCare market has struggled, according to researchers at Georgetown University.

There is still much uncertainty about the order. Many observers doubt that Trump has the power to change much on his own.

Tim Jost, a health law expert at Washington and Lee University, said it is hard to imagine how the White House could find the legal authority to expand association health plans to individuals. The move would likely draw legal challenges.

A more likely action, Jost said, would be to expand association health plans so that it is easier for small groups to form them. That could destabilize the small group insurance market but would be a less sweeping step than expanding association health plans to individuals.

Given the limits on his authority, Trump is likely to direct agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor, to issue guidance or regulations. Those additional steps will prolong the process.

Insurers are worried about the potentially destabilizing effects of the order. Lobbyists said insurers had begun quietly working on the issue and talking to the administration but do not yet know how far-reaching the effects would be.

It is possible there could be legal challenges to the regulations. The order would change the interpretation of a 1974 law called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. That interpretation could be challenged in court, for example if the order sought to allow individuals, not just small groups, to join association health plans.

“There will likely be challenges,” said Kevin Lucia, a professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Health Insurance Reforms.

Lucia said the planned order, in combination with other steps the Trump administration is taking, like cutting back on outreach efforts, “really undermines the future of the individual market.”

A sicker group of enrollees remaining in the ObamaCare plans poses problems.

The changes “will lead to less [insurers] playing in this market and potentially a sicker risk pool which translates to higher premiums,” Lucia said.

Cori Uccello, senior health fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries, said that one aspect to watch in the order is when the changes will take effect. Insurers have already set their prices and made plans for 2018.

“Anything that applied to 2018 would be incredibly destabilizing,” she said. “It would still be destabilizing in 2019 but people would know ahead of time.”

Steep Premiums Challenge People Who Buy Health Insurance Without Subsidies

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

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/07/555957419/steep-premiums-challenge-people-who-buy-health-insurance-without-subsidies

Image result for Uninsured

Paul Melquist of St. Paul, Minn., has a message for the people who wrote the Affordable Care Act: “Quit wrecking my health care.”

Teri Goodrich of Raleigh, N.C., agrees. “We’re getting slammed. We didn’t budget for this,” she says.

Millions of people have gained health insurance because of the federal health law. Millions more have seen their existing coverage improved.

But one slice of the population, which includes Melquist and Goodrich, is unquestionably worse off. They are healthy people who buy their own coverage but earn too much to qualify for help paying their premiums. And the premium hikes that are being announced as enrollment looms for next year — in some states, increases topping 50 percent — will make their situations more miserable.

Exactly how big is this group? According to Mark Farrah Associates, a health care analysis firm, as of 2017, there were 17.6 million people in the individual market, 5.4 million of whom bought policies outside the health exchanges, where premium help is not available. Combine that with the percentage of people who bought insurance on the exchanges but earned too much (more than four times the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for an individual) to get premium subsidies, and the estimate is 7.5 million, or 43 percent of the total individual market purchasers, according to insurance industry consultant Robert Laszewski.

Who are these people?

“They’re early retirees,” says Laszewski. “They’re people working part time who have substantial outside income. They’re people who are self-employed of any age, people who are small employers.”

Melquist is one of those early retirees. He and his wife are both 59. He worked in the defense industry and retired at the end of 2016.

He always planned to retire at age 55 but ended up working longer, in part because he knew health insurance costs were rising. When he did retire and sought to purchase coverage for himself and his wife, he says, “I was shocked to find out how bad it actually was.”

For a bronze-level plan with a health savings account, Melquist says, “we pay $15,000 a year [in premiums] and the first $6,550 [for health care expenses] for each of us comes out of our pocket. So basically you could be looking at $30,000 out of pocket before anything gets covered.”

Insurance is important, Melquist says, particularly if a catastrophic health issue were to hit either of him or his wife. In the meantime, he can still pay the bills. But he’s frustrated. “I’m not eating dog food, but I’m also not able to do stuff for my grandchildren,” he says, like help with college costs. “It’s not that my life is falling apart, but the [Affordable Care Act] has ruined a lot of things I’d like to have done.”

The good news, if there is any, for Melquist is that premiums in Minnesota are going up by only small amounts for 2018, and in some cases going down, because of a reinsurance program passed by the state legislature that will help cover the costs for some of the state’s sickest patients in the individual market. That move will help keep premiums from spiking even more.

But that won’t be the case in Raleigh, where Goodrich and her husband, John Kistle, work as private consultants in the energy industry.

Goodrich, 59, and Kistle, 57, bought insurance through the ACA exchange in their state for three years. When premiums reached $1,600 per month with deductibles of $7,500 each, however, “it was just unbelievable. We decided just not to get insurance,” Goodrich says.

Eventually, they bought short-term plans that cover only catastrophic illness or injury. That insurance is not considered adequate under the ACA, so the couple could be liable for a tax penalty as well.

Goodrich, who volunteers to help people with their taxes in her spare time, says she has run the numbers and thinks that insurance is so expensive where she lives that the couple will be exempt from the penalty. That is because the cheapest insurance would cost the couple more than 8.16 percent of their income. Under the health law’s provisions, the penalty doesn’t apply above that level because insurance is considered unaffordable.

“We try to be good citizens and do the right thing,” she says. “Next year, we’re trying to figure out how to make less than $64,000 so we can get subsidies.” That amount is equal to 400 percent of the federal poverty line for two people, the cutoff for premium assistance because Congress assumed those who earned more could afford to buy affordable coverage.

Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University who specializes in health insurance, agreed that this is a population “that faced big hikes” in premiums when the health law took effect.

But, she says, in many cases, people in the individual market were previously paying artificially low premiums. Some of those old policies had substandard coverage. For others, however, the higher prices are the result of one of the fundamental changes enacted by the health law. “These are folks who were benefiting from a system that was affordable solely because insurers were able to keep sick people out,” Corlette says, adding that they are now being asked “to pay more of the true cost of health care.”

This is a population that is also more likely to vote Republican, says Laszewski, “which is one of the grand ironies now.”

Republicans in Congress and President Trump haven’t been able to “repeal and replace” the health law. But some of their efforts are undermining it — primarily the administration’s threat to stop paying billions of dollars to insurers in subsidies to help some lower-income people pay their out-of-pocket costs. The uncertainty surrounding those subsidies has led insurers to boost premiums next year by an estimated 20 percent. Those who get premium help from the government won’t have to pay more. But those who are paying the full freight will.

Also driving up premiums for next year, says Corlette, are the administration’s threats not to enforce the individual requirement for insurance and its decision to cancel most advertising and outreach for the year’s open-enrollment period that begins Nov. 1. Both of those provisions bring more healthy people into the insurance pool to help spread costs.

“One could argue that the 2014 premium increases were painful, but it was about getting us to a system that was more fundamentally fair and just,” Corlette says. “Now, it’s completely unnecessary price increases for unsubsidized folks that could so easily be avoided by a rational political system.”

Senate leaves town with no Obamacare fix

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

State Department: China, Russia want to ‘break the West’

Image result for leaving on a jet plane

The Senate left town on Thursday for more than a week without reaching a deal to stabilize Obamacare’s marketplaces.

Talks between Democrats and Republicans started up again in earnest late last month after the GOP’s latest attempt at Obamacare repeal collapsed. However, the Senate left town Thursday without finalizing any deal, although negotiators pledged to continue talks.

Meanwhile, the Senate is in recess all of next week and won’t return until Oct. 16, just a few weeks before 2018 open enrollment starts on Nov. 1. A Senate aide said there is “no question a sense of urgency if you want to have impact on 2018.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., leading the Republican side of the talks, said Thursday that Democrats and Republicans remain in good faith negotiations.

When asked if it was too late to reach an agreement to affect the 2018 coverage year, Alexander quickly responded “no.”

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., did not give a timeline for when to finish a deal.

“We are absolutely working on this. No one should think this is easy,” she said.

Some senators were perturbed they are leaving for a week without any bipartisan plan.

“I had hoped that we would pass before leaving town a bill that would help stabilize the insurance markets and lower premiums,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a major proponent of an agreement.

The basic framework of the agreement is funding insurer subsidies in exchange for giving more flexibility to states for waivers.

The subsidies reimburse insurers for lowering copays and deductibles for low-income Obamacare customers. The Trump administration has been making the payments month to month but has not made a commitment to the payments for 2018, which insurers have been pleading with them to do.

Republicans want in exchange for the subsidies greater flexibility and a quicker approval process for states to waive Obamacare regulations for insurers. States have complained the current process for approving waivers by the federal government is slow and burdensome and they want fewer constraints on what regulations they can waive.

Alexander said earlier this week the two sides have “differences in opinion on what amounts to giving states meaningful flexibility in exchange for two years of cost-reduction payments.”

Insurers are already finalizing rates for next year and some could charge higher rates without the subsidies.

For instance, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield in Delaware announced Thursday it will raise Obamacare rates by 25 percent next year, according to Delaware Online. The insurer said the rate request was based on the uncertainty surrounding the payments and questions around whether the federal government will enforce the individual mandate that forces people to have insurance.

The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that rates for silver plans, the most popular of Obamacare’s three metal tier plans, will go up 19 percent without the payments.

As ACA enrollment nears, administration keeps cutting federal support of the law

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-aca-enrollment-nears-administration-keeps-cutting-federal-support-of-the-law/2017/10/05/cc5995a2-a50e-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.b9039864660d

Image result for sabotaging ACA

 

For months, officials in Republican-controlled Iowa had sought federal permission to revitalize their ailing health-insurance marketplace. Then President Trump read about the request in a newspaper story and called the federal director weighing the application.

Trump’s message in late August was clear, according to individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations: Tell Iowa no.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act see the president’s opposition even to changes sought by conservative states as part of a broader campaign by his administration to undermine the 2010 health-care law. In addition to trying to cut funding for the ACA, the Trump administration also is hampering state efforts to control premiums. In the case of Iowa, that involved a highly unusual intervention by the president himself.

And with the fifth enrollment season set to begin Nov. 1, advocates say the Health and Human Services Department has done more to suppress the number of people signing up than to boost it. HHS has slashed grants to groups that help consumers get insurance coverage, for example. It also has cut the enrollment period in half, reduced the advertising budget by 90 percent and announced an outage schedule that would make the HealthCare.gov website less available than last year.

The White House also has yet to commit to funding the cost-sharing reductions that help about 7 million lower-income Americans afford out-of-pocket expenses on their ACA health plans. Trump has regularly threatened to block them and, according to an administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly, officials are considering action to end the payments in November.

The uncertainty has driven premium prices much higher for 2018. A possible move by the Treasury Department to ease the requirement that most Americans obtain coverage could further erode a core element of the law.

On Friday, Sen. Margaret Wood Hassan (D-N.H.) called on the administration to abandon its “attempts to sabotage health care markets and raise health care costs for millions.” Such efforts, warn health advocates as well as state and local officials, will translate into more uninsured Americans.

“In Ohio, the Trump administration has already inflicted the damage,” said Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks. After its nearly $1.7 million enrollment-assistance grant was cut 72 percent last month, the group decided it no longer could effectively participate. “We are past the point of no return on this,” Hamler-Fugitt said.

HHS has told its regional administrators not to even meet with on-the-ground organizations about enrollment. The late decision, which department spokesman Matt Lloyd said was made because such groups organize and implement events “with their own agenda,” left leaders of grass-roots organizations feeling stranded.

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask the agency tasked with outreach and enrollment to be involved with that,” said Roy Mitchell, executive director for the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program, which receives no federal funding for its ACA efforts. “There’s money for HHS to fly around on private jets, but there’s not money and resources to do outreach in Mississippi.”

Administration officials make no apologies for actions scaling back federal support for the ACA, also known as Obamacare. Trump, Vice President Pence and those carrying out the law at different agencies take most every opportunity to claim that it is failing. HHS Secretary Tom Price’s abrupt resignation Friday, prompted by the furor over his use of expensive chartered planes for work trips, is not expected to shift this overall approach.

After failing to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Republican leaders said it will “implode.” Health-care experts disagree, saying the ACA is stable under current law — but President Trump and congressional Republicans could change that. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

“Obamacare has never lived up to enrollment expectations despite the previous administration’s best efforts,” Lloyd said in an email last week. “The American people know a bad deal when they see one, and many won’t be convinced to sign up for ‘Washington-knows-best’ health coverage that they can’t afford.”

Trump and his aides also are looking for ways to loosen the existing law’s requirements, now that the latest congressional attempt to repeal it outright has failed. The Treasury Department may broaden the ACA’s “hardship exemption” so that taxpayers don’t face costly penalties for failing to obtain coverage, a Republican briefed on the plan said. That is sure to depress enrollment among the younger, healthier consumers whom insurers count on to help buffer the health-care costs of sicker customers.

“We should fully expect the Trump administration to take a more activist route to deal with Obamacare, given the inability of Congress to move through with a repeal-and-replace bill,” said Lanhee Chen, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

While the law’s open enrollment period has attracted the most public attention, a more obscure battle within the administration over several states’ proposed changes for their marketplaces speaks volumes about the president’s approach to the law.

It was a Wall Street Journal article about Iowa’s request that provoked Trump’s ire, according to an individual briefed on the exchange. The story detailed how officials had just submitted the application for a Section 1332 waiver — a provision that allows states to adjust how they are implementing the ACA as long as they can prove it would not translate into lost or less-affordable coverage.

Iowa’s aim was to foster more competition and better prices. The story said other states hoping to stabilize their situations were watching closely.

Trump first tried to reach Price, the individual recounted, but the secretary was traveling in Asia and unavailable. The president then called Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency charged with authorizing or rejecting Section 1332 applications. CMS had been working closely with Iowa as it fine-tuned its submission.

State Insurance Commissioner Doug Ommen has repeatedly described the “Iowa Stopgap Measure” as critical to expanding marketplace options there. The plan would abolish the ACA exchange there and convert consumer subsidies into a type of GOP-styled tax credit. New financial buffers would help insurers handle customers with particularly high medical expenses.

Without the measure, “over 20,000 middle class farmers, early retirees and self-employed Iowans will likely either go uninsured or leave Iowa,” Ommen warned in a Sept. 19 statement. Those who sign up for 2018 exchange coverage face premium rate increases of 57 percent on average from the single insurer participating.

Some administration officials are still pressing for the waiver to be granted, according to interviews with several Republicans. The HHS spokesman confirmed last week that Iowa’s application “has been deemed complete and is currently under review” but did not address the president’s directive on the matter.

Eliot Fishman oversaw such waivers at CMS during the previous administration and said in an interview that President Barack Obama weighed in on those decisions only in “unusual” cases” toward the end of the process.

“Things that are tough calls typically go to the president, but they go with a [staff] recommendation that often carries a great deal of weight,” said Fishman, now senior director of health policy for the liberal health-care advocacy group Families USA.

Iowa is not the only red state to chafe at the administration’s unwillingness to allow more flexibility.

On Friday, Oklahoma sent a letter to Price and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin saying it was withdrawing its federal waiver request because administration officials had not provided an answer “after months of development, negotiation, and near daily communication over the past six weeks.”

“While we appreciate the work of your staff, the lack of timely waiver approval will prevent thousands of Oklahomans from realizing the benefits of significantly lower insurance premiums in 2018,” wrote Terry Cline, the state’s health secretary.

In at least one case, CMS has approved a waiver in a way that upended a state’s plan to maximize health coverage for its residents. Minnesota applied to CMS for permission to establish a reinsurance program, which can lower premiums by giving insurers a guarantee that they will have limited financial exposure for customers with particularly high medical expenses. The agency informed Gov. Mark Dayton (D) on Sept. 22 that it would provide $323 million for the program since the lower premiums would mean savings to the federal government on subsidies to Minnesotans with ACA health plans.

But, Verma added, the federal government also would cut $369 million in funding for a separate program aimed at residents who earn between 138 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level and don’t qualify for the same subsidies.

Minnesota’s entire congressional delegation, Democrats and Republicans alike, issued a joint statement saying they were “disappointed that our state is facing a last-minute penalty” and “exploring possible paths forward.”

Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said Trump should devote time to forging a bipartisan agreement to stabilize the ACA marketplaces.

“If he is only interested in sabotaging the market, that is a dangerous road for him to ride, because he will own it,” she said.

3 Ways the Senate Budget Reopens the Door for ACA Repeal

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

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2017/09/29/440039/3-ways-senate-budget-reopens-door-aca-repeal/

After the latest failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the Senate, Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) declared that they would only support a new budget resolution that enabled them to keep trying to force through their own health care bill. The Senate has not had to meet the 60-vote standard to pass ACA repeal because of the budget reconciliation process, which lets the Senate pass legislation with a simple majority vote. This process began with reconciliation instructions included in the fiscal year 2017 budget that Congress passed in January 2017, but those instructions expire on September 30.

While the new FY 2018 budget resolution from the Senate Budget Committee retreats from ACA repeal to some extent—after massive public opposition—it would still enable Congress to revive major elements of ACA repeal using reconciliation. Here are three ways the proposed Senate budget supports ACA repeal.

1. An overly broad reconciliation instruction to the Senate Finance Committee

The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over both tax policy and several federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. If the Senate wanted to limit the scope of a reconciliation bill to tax policy, the budget resolution could give instructions to the Senate Finance Committee that only cover revenues. Instead, the budget instructs the Finance Committee to produce legislation that increases deficits by up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Since deficit changes can be accomplished via changes to both spending and revenues, the Finance Committee could use this reconciliation instruction to repeal ACA-related taxes as well as much of the spending that helps people purchase health insurance under current law. Politico reports that “95 percent of health care policy” goes through the Senate Finance Committee, according to a Republican Congressional staffer discussing ACA repeal. As a result, the staffer said, “it’s not like we couldn’t slip it in anyway.”

Every dollar the Finance Committee cuts from health care could be used to pay for tax cuts for the rich that would be on top of the $1.5 trillion tax cut financed by deficits. This reconciliation instruction could let Congress pass a huge deficit-financed tax cut for the wealthy and corporations, combined with major elements of ACA repeal, in a single omnibus reconciliation bill. If the Finance Committee’s overall bill does not increase deficits by more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years, the Senate could pass it on a party-line vote under reconciliation.

Aside from the Finance Committee, the only other committee involved in ACA repeal in the Senate is the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. The Senate budget resolution does not give a reconciliation instruction to the HELP Committee, which signals a meaningful retreat from full ACA repeal. Nevertheless, the Finance Committee instruction would still enable the Senate to change major parts of the law, which could include nullifying the ACA mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, repealing the ACA-related taxes that finance the coverage expansion, and making all of the Medicaid cuts in earlier ACA repeal legislation, such as repealing the Medicaid expansion and making further cuts by turning the program into a block grant.

2. A deficit-neutral reserve fund for ACA repeal

The Senate budget resolution further smooths the path for ACA repeal with a deficit-neutral reserve fund for “repealing or replacing” the ACA. This allows Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY) to adjust the aggregates that are included in the budget resolution, such as overall spending and revenue levels, to accommodate ACA repeal. This reserve fund helps the Senate majority avoid points of order that could otherwise create hurdles for passing a future health care bill. A similar reserve fund was also included in the FY 2017 budget resolution.

Budget resolutions often include many reserve funds that are mostly designed to signal rhetorical support for an issue. Not only does the reserve fund for health legislation smooth the way for ACA repeal, it also shows that supporters of the Senate budget continue to endorse ACA repeal even after the FY 2017 reconciliation instructions expire on September 30.

3. Deficit-financed tax cuts

Even if Congress does not go after the ACA using reconciliation instructions in the FY 2018 budget, the deficits from the tax cuts the Senate budget enables will be used by the ACA’s opponents to attack the law in the future. Whipping up hysteria about budget deficits is a common tactic to advocate cuts to programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and it is already being used to justify ACA repeal. When asked a question on CNN from a person who had recovered from substance abuse addiction and who worried about loss of Medicaid coverage for treatment for others suffering from addiction, Sen. Graham responded, “Let’s talk about $20 trillion of debt.”

If lawmakers increase the debt with the very tax cuts that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says will be “done by the end of the year,” it will add further fuel to their drive to slash programs for low- and middle-income Americans using reconciliation instructions in their next budget resolution for FY 2019. This will not be a long delay—the FY 2019 budget would be passed by April 15, 2018, if Congress follows the schedule for the regular budget process.

Lawmakers can cut taxes, increase deficits, and use those higher deficits to justify a renewed push to repeal the ACA, all before the 2018 midterm elections.

Conclusion

The window is closing for Congress to pass ACA repeal using the FY 2017 reconciliation instructions, but the Senate Budget Committee is reopening it with the FY 2018 budget. The quest to repeal the ACA—thereby cutting taxes for the wealthy, taking health insurance from tens of millions of Americans, eliminating protections for preexisting conditions, and driving up out-of-pocket costs—will continue if Congress passes the Senate budget resolution.

What’s Past Is Prologue: CBO’s Score for the House-Passed AHCA Reminds Us Why Insurance Markets Need Regulation

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/jun/why-insurance-markets-need-regulation

Related image

 

The Trump administration has been arguing for months that the insurance market reforms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are not working and are even harming consumers. But four years of accumulated data on Americans’ experiences in a reformed individual market provides considerable evidence to the contrary. Americans’ ability to buy comprehensive health plans on their own has improved significantly since the reforms went into effect in 2014. Most people with marketplace plans are satisfied with them and have used their plans to get health care they couldn’t have obtained in the past. A majority of those eligible for subsidies have premiums and deductibles similar to those in employer plans. And while policy fixes are needed to improve affordability, as well competition in some areas of the country, the marketplaces were looking increasingly stable for both consumers and insurers at the beginning of this year.

It is actually the lack of certainty about the administration’s actions regarding the enforcement of the market reforms, rather than the reforms themselves, that are the primary source of the marketplace’s current problems. The importance of the ACA’s insurance market reforms were underscored last week in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis of the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Republican’s ACA repeal-and-replace bill. The report included an assessment of an amendment that would allow states to undo some of the reforms. That assessment is a powerful illustration of why these reforms were needed in the first place.

The MacArthur Amendment Relaxes ACA Individual Market Reforms

In the week before the House vote in May, Representative Tom MacArthur sponsored an amendment to the AHCA that provided waivers for states that wanted to relax two major sets of ACA reforms:

  • The requirement that insurance companies sell policies that cover a standard set of health benefits similar to those in employer-based coverage
  • The ban that prevents insurance companies from charging people more based on their health.

Under the first waiver, states could let insurers eliminate coverage for many services, significantly driving up out-of-pocket costs for people who need these services. Under the second waiver, states could allow insurers to price, or underwrite, people’s insurance based on their health if they applied for a plan and had a gap in their insurance of 63 days or more. States with the waivers would be required to establish high-risk pools or reinsurance programs to make coverage affordable for people who had higher premiums as a result. They could draw funds from the AHCA’s Patient and State Stability Fund, a pool of $10–$15 billion a year over 2018–2026 that was supplemented for various purposes through amendments.1

CBO Estimated About Half the U.S. Population Lives in States That Would Request Waivers

If there were doubts about whether any states would apply for the waivers, the CBO had some news: half the U.S. population could live in states that would use these waivers to begin deregulating their individual insurance markets. The basis for their estimate? In part, they considered state approaches to their individual markets prior to the ACA. States that had previously allowed insurers the freest rein in consumer coverage denials, rating on health, and flexibility in what services they would cover were expected to loosen the reins again.

CBO also expected that states that sought the waivers would implement them in different ways. Some states might modestly deregulate their markets while others might make more dramatic changes. For example, some states might require insurers to cover a core set of benefits but allow them to exclude maternity or mental health services. Using 2014 data, RAND researchers have estimated that this could increase the costs to families of having a baby by $6,900 to $9,300 and the annual costs of mental health care by $1,300 to over $12,000. Other states might go a step further and let insurers determine the entire content of their benefit packages as they did in many states prior to the ACA, leaving many people with preexisting conditions stuck with the full cost of their care.

Likewise, CBO assumed that some states would take different approaches to reintroducing individual underwriting in their markets. Because healthy people would face lower premiums if they were rated on the basis of their health, they would have little incentive to maintain continuous coverage, since they would prefer the lower rate they would receive if carriers rated them on health. In order to keep healthy people in the community-rated risk pool (the one with both healthy and unhealthy enrollees), a state might only allow underwriting of people with health problems.

Other states might go whole hog and allow underwriting on health for everyone who had a coverage gap, regardless of their health status. These markets over time would begin to look like those of the pre-ACA past: markets segmented into pools where people in good health could find affordable plans and those with health problems were priced out of the market. The CBO concluded that the funds set aside for state high-risk pools for people with health problems were inadequate to make coverage affordable for people with preexisting conditions in these states.

What’s Past Is Prologue

Decades of experience with the individual market in the United States has shown that without considerable regulation the market simply cannot function for all those who rely on it. Allowing insurers in the past to price each individual’s policy according to their health penalized those who were the sickest and rewarded those who were the healthiest. The 35 states that tried to patch high-risk pools onto their individually rated markets and the ACA’s own transitional Preexisting Conditions Insurance Plan program left robust evidence that high-risk pools were expensive for states and the people who enrolled in them, left millions uninsured, and were ultimately unsustainable. States that had attempted to ban pricing based on health status (like New York and New Jersey) also experienced instabilitybecause the lack of premium subsidies and an individual mandate left their markets lopsided: too many people in poorer health without the balance provided by those in better health.  As a result, premiums soared.

In contrast, four years of experience with the ACA’s insurance market reforms demonstrates that it is possible for this market to offer affordable, comprehensive insurance to people with diverse health needs. In 2010, 60 percent of adults who tried to buy a plan in the individual market said that they found it very difficult or impossible to find one they could afford. By 2016, that number had fallen by nearly half, to 34 percent. While this rate leaves plenty of room for improvement, the substantial decline suggests that the U.S. has been headed in the right direction if private markets are the nation’s preferred path to universal coverage. But any future movement along this path will require the full commitment of the Trump administration and Congress to enforcing and improving the ACA’s reforms of our complex private health insurance markets.

What Graham-Cassidy means for pre-existing conditions

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

https://www.axios.com/what-graham-cassidy-really-means-for-pre-existing-conditions-2487720743.html

Image result for What Graham-Cassidy means for pre-existing conditions

Jimmy Kimmel’s takedown of Sen. Bill Cassidy, and Cassidy’s response, ripped open the question of whether the GOP’s latest health reform bill protects people with pre-existing conditions. Cassidy and co-sponsor Sen. Lindsey Graham insist it does — as did President Trump in a tweet last night — but experts say that’s not really the case.

The bottom line: The bill’s funding cuts could pressure states — even blue states — to waive protections for sick people, as a way to keep premium increases in check. Older, sicker people in every state could end up paying more as states try to make up for a funding shortfall.

What the bill does: The bill wouldn’t repeal the Affordable Care Act’s rules about pre-existing conditions. But they might end up only existing on paper, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt said.

Graham-Cassidy doesn’t let states waive the part of the Affordable Care Act that says insurers have to cover sick people. But it does allow states to opt out of several other ACA rules that can cause people with pre-existing conditions to pay more for their health care. Those provisions include:

  • The ban on charging sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
  • The requirement that insurers cover “essential health benefits,” including prescription drugs. People who need expensive drugs might not have access to a plan that covers those drugs, requiring them to pay out of pocket.
    • Services that aren’t “essential” benefits aren’t subject to the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits.
  • The bill also would also loosen rules about how much insurers can raise their premiums because of a customer’s age. (Older people are more likely to have pre-existing conditions.)

What supporters will argue: The bill requires states to say how their waivers would provide affordable and accessible coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. But there’s no definition of what that means, and there’s also no enforcement mechanism.

  • “The bottom line is these protections are much more at risk under this bill than they are now,” said Cori Uccello, a senior health fellow with the American Academy of Actuaries.

Another level: At least theoretically, because the bill gives states so much control, a more liberal state like California might choose to preserve more of the ACA’s regulations than, say, Alabama. But this bill would radically redistribute federal health care funding — generally away from blue and purple states and toward red states. Those cuts could back blue states into seeking more expansive waivers.

  • Caroline Pearson of Avalere told me: “if you have less money, you either cover fewer people, or you cover the same amount of people with less generous coverage. People with pre existing conditions are very reliant on having access to affordable insurance and need insurance that is comprehensive. So if a bill reduces the availability of comprehensive insurance, people with chronic conditions are going to be disproportionately harmed.”

 

Stat of the Day

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

Cassidy-Graham’s Waiver Authority Would Gut Protections for People with Pre-Existing Conditions

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

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/cassidy-grahams-waiver-authority-would-gut-protections-for-people-with-pre-existing-conditions

Image result for Cassidy-Graham Waiver Authority Would Gut Protections for People with Pre-Existing Conditions

 

The revised Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal plan from Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, which is also backed by Senators Dean Heller and Ron Johnson, would give states broad waiver authority to eliminate the ACA’s core protections for people with pre-existing health conditions. These waivers would come on top of the proposal’s elimination of the ACA’s marketplace subsidies and Medicaid expansion, its radical restructuring of the rest of the Medicaid program, and its large cuts to total federal funding for health insurance coverage.

Specifically, a little-noticed provision of the block grant funding states would receive under the plan would let them obtain waivers of ACA pre-existing conditions protections and benefit standards for any insurance plan subsidized by block grant funding. For example, a state that used a small portion of its block grant funding to provide even tiny subsidies to all individual market plans could then waive these protections for its entire individual market. Likewise, states that used block grant funding to offer or subsidize coverage for low-income people could offer plans with large gaps in benefits. States seeking waivers would have to explain how they “intend” to maintain access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, but they wouldn’t have to prove that their waivers would actually do so.

In particular, states could waive the ACA’s:

  • Prohibitions against insurance companies charging people higher premiums based on their health status. While insurers would still be required to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, they could offer them plans with unaffordable premiums of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per month. For consumers, an offer like that is no different than a coverage denial.
  • Requirements that plans cover “essential health benefits.” Before the ACA introduced the requirement that all plans cover a defined set of basic services, 75 percent of individual market plans excluded maternity coverage, 45 percent excluded substance use treatment, and 38 percent excluded mental health care, according to analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Under the Cassidy-Graham proposal, states could let insurers restore these exclusions, leaving many people — especially those with pre-existing conditions — without access to the health services they need.

The waiver authority included in the Cassidy-Graham plan is similar to the so-called “MacArthur amendment” waivers that were included in the House-passed ACA repeal bill. Analyzing those waivers, the Congressional Budget Office concluded:

  • States accounting for one-sixth of the nation’s population would choose to let insurers charge higher premiums based on health status. In those states, “less healthy individuals (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would be unable to purchase comprehensive coverage with premiums close to those under current law and might not be able to purchase coverage at all [emphasis added].”
  • States accounting for half of the nation’s population would choose to let insurers exclude essential health benefits. In those states, “services or benefits likely to be excluded … include maternity care, mental health and substance abuse benefits, rehabilitative and habilitative services, and pediatric dental benefits.” People needing these services “would face increases in their out-of-pocket costs. Some people would have increases of thousands of dollars in a year.”

Announcing their revised plan, Senators Cassidy and Graham explained that they sought to revise their prior legislation to accomplish the goal of letting states waive the ACA’s core consumer protections. Apparently, they largely succeeded: if their bill were adopted, millions of people with pre-existing conditions would lose access to these protections, and, as a result, would lose access to needed coverage and care.