Tag Archives: Essential Health Benefits

Payer trade groups slam short-term health plan proposal

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

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/payer-trade-groups-slam-short-term-health-plan-proposal/521941/

 

More organizations, including Aetna and the American Medical Association, submitted comments on the proposed rule Monday.

Dive Brief:

  • The Alliance of Community Health Plans (ACHP) and America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) both slammed CMS’ proposal to expand short-term, limited duration (STLD) insurance plans, saying the proposed rule would undermine key consumer protections, lead to higher premiums in the individual market and jeopardize market stability.
  • The proposed rule, pushed by the Trump administration as a way to increase access to cheaper plan alternatives and sidestep the Affordable Care Act, would allow consumers to purchase plans for up to 12 months that do not adhere to federal rules for individual health insurance. STLD plans can charge those with pre-existing conditions more and may not cover ACA essential health benefits such as prescription drug coverage.
  • The insurance lobbies argued that other policy mechanisms would be more effective at improving the individual health insurance market. AHIP pointed to increasing 1332 state waiver flexibility and the adoption of regulations aimed at preventing improper steering of Medicare and Medicaid consumers into the individual market, and ACHP advocated for the creation of a federal reinsurance program as more effective ways to promote affordable coverage.

Dive Insight:

The comments are indicative that many insurers are hesitant to back health plans that lack the consumer protections the ACA put into place due to a fear such plans would destabilize the individual market. Monday is the last day to submit comments on the rule.

A new Kaiser Family Foundation brief notes that many middle-income people not shielded by premium subsidies in the individual market would likely see premium costs increase. Combined with the individual mandate penalty being zeroed out, the effort to increase STLD plans could result in fewer individuals enrolled in the ACA market, adversely impacting its stability.

“Short-term plans were designed for consumers to use as temporary, stop-gap measures when moving between plans – not as long-term replacements for health insurance,” ACHP CEO Ceci Connolly said in a statement. “A broad, stable risk pool is crucial for providing affordable coverage and care. ACHP believes that other policy options, such as reinsurance, would be far more effective at promoting high-quality, affordable coverage and care for all Americans.”

ACHP argued the proposed rule should not be finalized, saying the current status-quo limit of 90 days should be maintained.

AHIP called for any final rule to limit the duration of STLD plans to six months, adding that the plans should be required to have a plain-language disclosure that the plans should not be considered comprehensive health insurance. The group argued that the effective date of any final rule should come no sooner than Jan. 1, 2020.

“As the Departments advance policies to expand access to lower-cost coverage choices for a subgroup of consumers, it is critical to improve the affordability of comprehensive coverage options for all Americans, regardless of health status,” Matthew Eyles, AHIP COO, wrote in the group’s comment.

But major insurer Aetna, which left AHIP in 2016, said in its comment STLD plans “can be a valuable option for many consumers.”

The insurer argued that such plans must be transparent with disclosure language, limit any look-back period for pre-existing conditions to 12 months and define a minimum floor of benefits including inpatient hospital services, physician services, mental health and substance abuse services and one annual physical and annual well-woman visit before the deductible.

A group of Senate Democrats were among those asking for the rule to not be finalized, arguing it “could increase costs and reduce access to quality coverage for millions of Americans, harm people with pre-existing conditions, and force premium increases on older Americans.”

The American Medical Association also echoed the insurance lobby’s concern, saying STLD plans would endanger the coverage gains of the past decade and destabilize the market. AMA argued the administration should withdraw the proposed rule, saying it is “a step in the wrong direction and will lead to a proliferation of inadequate health insurance policies in the market.”

A joint comment of 21 consumer advocates, including March of Dimes and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also called for withdrawing the proposal.

PhRMA voiced concern in its comment over the lack of prescription drug coverage in STLD plans, citing an analysis that found than 71% of such plans do not cover outpatient prescription drugs. “If consumers can renew these plans for an extended period, it increases the chances that consumers may find themselves diagnosed with a new condition that can be effectively treated by an innovative drug at a time when they are covered by a short-term plan that does not cover prescriptions drugs,” PhRMA wrote.

 

 

Health Care’s New ‘Skinny Plans’: Winners and Losers

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/health-cares-new-skinny-plans-winners-and-losers-1524654000

Image result for Health Care’s New ‘Skinny Plans’: Winners and Losers

 

Trump’s ‘skinny plans’ offer a cheaper alternative to the Affordable Care Act, but may have far less coverage.

 

New, more-limited health plans may draw consumers away from Affordable Care Act coverage and drive up prices on insurance sold in the health law’s marketplaces. These “skinny” plans offer lower premiums, making them an attractive alternative for young, healthy buyers.

New, more-limited health plans may draw consumers away from Affordable Care Act coverage and drive up prices on insurance sold in the health law’s marketplaces.

These “skinny” plans offer lower premiums, making them an attractive alternative for young, healthy buyers.

Why health care costs are making consumers more afraid of medical bills than an actual illness

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

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/22/why-health-care-costs-are-making-consumers-more-afraid-of-medical-bills-than-an-actual-illness.html

Image result for Why health care costs are making consumers more afraid of medical bills than an actual illness

  • Health care costs are spiraling higher, but patient visits to a doctor have been on the decline.
  • A growing number of consumers are staying away out of fear of big bills.
  • However, “untimely visits or delay of visits to the physician ultimately leads to the increased cost of care,” the Cleveland Clinic’s CEO told CNBC.

 

As health care costs keep rising, more people seem to be skipping physician visits.

It’s not fear of doctors, however, but more of a phobia about the bills that could follow. Higher deductibles and out-of-network fees are just some of the out-of-pocket costs that can hit a consumer’s pockets.

U.S. health care costs keep rising, and hit more than $10,000 a year per person in 2016. According to a recent national poll, over the past 12 months, 44 percent of Americans said they didn’t go to the doctor when they were sick or injured because of financial concerns. Meanwhile, 40 percent said they skipped a recommended medical test or treatment.

Also, the study found most people who are delaying or skipping care actually have health insurance. Some 86 percent of those surveyed said they’re covered either through their employer, have insurance they purchased directly, or through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“There have been so many changes in the health care landscape in the United States that this news is not entirely surprising,” Cleveland Clinic president and CEO Tom Mihaljevic told CNBC’s “On the Money” in a recent interview. However, Mihaljevic warned that skipping visits or treatment can be counterproductive.

“One of most important consequences of skipping medical care or delaying care ultimately impacts the quality of care, impacts the outcome,” he said. “Untimely visits or delay of visits to the physician ultimately leads to the increased cost of care.”

However, the poll, conducted by the University of Chicago and the West Health Institute, found Americans fear large medical bills more than they do serious illness. The data showed 33 percent of those surveyed were “extremely afraid” or “very afraid” of getting seriously ill. About 40 percent said paying for health care is more frightening than the illness itself.

“Part of problem here is healthcare tends to be very complex, and every patient typically requires a number of procedures and tests to be done, so it’s really difficult to estimate the upfront cost of care, ” Mihaljevic told CNBC.

Additionally, the survey found 54 percent of those polled received one or more medical bills over the past year for something they thought was covered by their insurance. And 53 percent received a bill that was higher than they expected.

Mihaljevic acknowledged the range of different fees for the same services should be made clearer for consumers. “There is an absolute need for increased transparency when it comes to cost and this is one of mandates for our industry as a whole,” he said.

How technology can help

To combat rising health costs, Mihaljevic explained that the Cleveland Clinic is focused on the “standardization of care.”

“When we reduce the variability of the way we take care of patients, we manage to decrease the cost and at the same time improve the quality of care that we provide,” he added.

In addition, the health system is also pushing ahead with advances in medical technology, which may help bring down costs in the future. “We firmly believe digital technology is going to have a transformative effect,” Mihaljevic said. Among the initiatives is a partnership with IBM Watson to use big data to help clinical decision making.

And through the Cleveland Clinic’s Express Care Online, 25,000 virtual doctor visits were completed in 2017. Although virtual visits are billed as more cost effective,new data suggest otherwise.

“We are constantly looking how to make our care more accessible more affordable and of higher quality,” Mihaljevic added.

Trump administration issues rule further watering down Obamacare

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

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-regulation/trump-administration-issues-rule-further-watering-down-obamacare-idUSKBN1HG384

Image result for Trump administration issues rule further watering down Obamacare

The Trump administration took additional steps to weaken Obamacare on Monday, allowing U.S. states to relax the rules on what insurers must cover and giving states more power to regulate their individual insurance markets.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a final rule that allows states to select essential health benefits that must be covered by individual insurance plans sold under former President Barack Obama’s healthcare law. The 2010 Affordable Care Act requires coverage of 10 benefits, including maternity and newborn care and prescription drugs. Under the new rule, states can select from a much larger list which benefits insurers must cover.

That could lead to less generous coverage in some states, according to Avalere Health, a research and consulting firm.

President Donald Trump’s administration has used its regulatory power to undermine Obamacare after the Republican-controlled Congress last year failed to repeal and replace the law. About 20 million people have received health insurance coverage through the program.

The new CMS rule also allows states the possibility of modifying the medical loss ratio (MLR) formula, the amount an insurer spends on medical claims compared with income from premiums that is also a key performance metric. A state can request “reasonable adjustments” to the medical loss ratio standard if it shows that it could help stabilize its individual market.

Insurers could also have an easier time raising their rates under the new rule. Obamacare mandated that premium rate increases of 10 percent or more in the individual market be scrutinized by state regulators to ensure that they are necessary and reasonable. The new CMS rule raises that threshold to 15 percent.

 

‘What The Health?’ It’s Nerd Week

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

https://khn.org/news/podcast-khns-what-the-health-its-nerd-week/

Image result for ‘What The Health?’ It’s Nerd Week

The Trump administration this week issued the rules governing next year’s Affordable Care Act insurance marketplaces, and they make some potentially large changes that could result in higher premiums and fewer benefits.

Meanwhile, states are going different ways in addressing the health insurance markets in their states in response to the federal activity. And House Speaker Paul Ryan announced his retirement — leaving an intellectual void among House Republicans when it comes to health care.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are:

  • Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News
  • Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal
  • Sarah Kliff of Vox.com
  • Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • The federal rules for the ACA’s marketplaces could dramatically alter how state regulators determine what plan benefits must be covered.
  • Those rules also change some conditions allowing people to qualify for exemptions to the requirement to have coverage — and they make those exemptions retroactive to 2017. So, some people who opted not to buy insurance and paid a penalty for 2017 may be able to file for refunds from the government.
  • Insurance companies are concerned about a number of the new provisions, including those that might drive healthy consumers away from the marketplaces and alter how insurers are compensated for having unusually high numbers of expensive customers.
  • An announcement from the White House this week said the administration is hoping to extend the work requirements that some states are seeking for Medicaid to other safety-net programs.
  • California and Maryland are among the states looking at ways to shore up their individual insurance markets in light of the changes being made at the federal level.

 

Consolidating California: Concentrated Provider Markets and Rising Prices

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

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/consolidating-california-concentrated-provider-markets-and-rising-prices?utm_source=edit&utm_medium=ENL&utm_campaign=HLM-FIN-SilverPop_04092018&spMailingID=13279518&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1380773897&spReportId=MTM4MDc3Mzg5NwS2#

A UC Berkeley study suggests that provider and insurer consolidation is increasing, reducing competition in regional markets, and leading to higher healthcare prices across California.

In the midst of a nationwide consolidation trend, California is witnessing a swell of mergers among health providers and insurers, resulting in higher prices for consumers and large-scale employers across the state.

A recent study found most counties in California, especially those in the rural northern portion of the state, have highly concentrated hospital markets, noting provider consolidation rose as average insurer consolidation decreased statewide.

The report, released last month by the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that Californians pay for healthcare services that are “considerably above what a more competitive market would produce.”

Of the 54 counties surveyed, 44 were highly concentrated hospital markets and six were moderately concentrated. According to the study, seven of these counties warrant “concern and scrutiny” by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

The report found from 2010 to 2016, there was a 15% increase in physicians working for a foundation owned by a hospital or health system rather than physician practices, due in part to health system mergers, as well as a 13% increase for primary care physicians, and a 29% increase for specialist physicians.

Additionally, the study found 42 counties surveyed for commercial health plans were highly concentrated while 16 were moderately concentrated. The study also recommended federal agencies review the concentration levels of the insurer market in seven counties.

Breeding anticompetitive behavior

Bill Kramer, MBA, executive director for national health policy at the Pacific Business Group on Health, told HealthLeaders Media the consolidation trend in California is a “serious problem” that employers have been dealing with for years.

Kramer said large health systems, physician groups, and health plans recognize that consolidation leads to increased market power, which in turn provides the opportunity to raise healthcare service prices above what is allowed in a competitive marketplace.

Two weeks ago, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued northern California’s Sutter Health, for anticompetitive practices. Sutter, a health system with $12.4 billion in operating revenue in 2017, is charged with foreclosing price competition on its competitors, imposing prices for healthcare services exceeding a competitive market value, and restricting negotiations with insurers to an “all-or-nothing” basis.

Since 2014, Sutter has also been the focus of a class-action lawsuit filed by a grocery worker’s health plan alleging violation of antitrust and unfair competition laws.

“When a provider or any other healthcare entity gains significant market share, it can use that power to negotiate higher prices,” Kramer said. “But they also can put in place mechanisms that strengthen their market power further. That’s what [Becerra] and complainants in this other lawsuit have alleged, that anticompetitive behavior further strengthens their market power and their ability to raise prices. It’s all part of the same picture.”

State and federal blocks on insurers, not providers

Becerra’s lawsuit against Sutter is not the first time state or federal officials have stepped in to address concerns in California’s healthcare industry.

In June 2016, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones requested the federal government block the proposed Aetna-Humana merger, citing concerns about an “already heavily concentrated commercial insurance” market. A federal judge agreed with his request and blocked the move in January 2017.

Despite recent and growing recognition among state and federal officials that action must be taken, Kramer says provider consolidation remains an issue without a simple solution. Efforts to enact antitrust statutes against health system mergers in recent years have not always been successful, and are often looked at as the “nuclear option” by industry watchers.

A potential path to offsetting provider consolidation is greenlighting insurer consolidation, though Kramer says there is mixed evidence about whether that would be effective. He said some argue that two large industries competing against each other can result in lower prices, while others claim there is no guarantee that consumers will see lower prices if savings are secured by insurers.

The Berkeley report recommends legislative and regulatory action to address “significant variation” in prices and Affordable Care Act (ACA) premiums across the state, specifically suggesting the implementation of reference pricing by public marketplaces and private employers.

Kramer says the consolidation dilemma is not unique to California, which offers state officials a chance to adopt proactive measures taken by other states to address rising healthcare costs associated with consolidation.

In 2011, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley authored a report similar to the Berkeley study that analyzed the rise in high prices due to health system mergers. The study ultimately led to the creation of the Health Policy Commission in 2012, with the purpose of monitoring healthcare prices in the state.

NoCal versus SoCal

Another important aspect of the consolidation trend in California is the divide between the rural northern counties and the more populous southern metropolitan area.

Northern California is a sparsely populated region dominated by large health systems, giving insurers less leverage to negotiate prices. A 2017 study from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI), the Center for Health Policy at Brookings, and The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government found that the hospital concentration in northern counties, where only two insurers cover the entire region, is five times higher than the Inland Empire.

Micah Weinberg, PhD, president of BACEI, told HealthLeaders Media the consolidation trend is not tied to one particular factor such as geography.

BACEI’s report cited the consolidation of a few health systems in northern California as a “perennial concern” and driver of rate variation between regions. However, Weinberg said that when low-price, for-profit systems in southern California are removed from the equation, there is a fair amount of parity between prices charged there compared to those charged in northern California.

Related: 3 Reasons Why Health Insurers and PBMs Are Merging

According to Weinberg, another aspect to California’s healthcare market that affects prices has been the implementation of a “very successful experiment” in managed competition through the state exchange. In 2010, California became the first state to create its own insurance marketplace under the ACA.

He argues that Covered California, the state’s insurance marketplace, has standardized healthcare products, instituted financial incentives for providers to embrace limited networks, and fostered competition.

“What that does is it emphasizes the importance of not only payers and providers, but of the structure of the marketplace, in which consumers are making choices across different provider groups linked to particular insurance plans,” Weinberg said.

The BACEI report did cite the ACA as an unintended driver of increased regional consolidation among providers, which has made achieving profitability in northern California a challenge for insurers such as UnitedHealth Group Inc., which exited the statewide ACA marketplace entirely in 2016.

 

 

The politics of ACA rate hikes will be 2016 in reverse

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

https://www.axios.com/politics-aca-rate-hikes-2016-in-reverse-63e401ef-03b7-4c11-a2b3-7410e1322c63.html

Protester holds sign saying "ACA Saves Lives"

We are about to see a replay of the 2016 election fight over premium increases, but this time in reverse. Last time, it was the Republicans hammering Democrats for the rate hikes. This time, it will be Democrats accusing Republicans of driving up premiums by sabotaging the Affordable Care Act.

What to watch: It’s going to be a balancing act for the Democrats. They can (and will) score political points by blaming Republicans for the coming premium increases, but another campaign debate about rising premiums could also undermine the ACA by focusing on its continuing problems.

In 2016, fear of rising premiums jumped the individual market, and a majority of Americans came to believe that rising premiums were somehow affecting them when only a small share of the public was impacted. That undermined the ACA and may have affected the election.

This time, Democrats will be on the offensive, buttressed by polling that shows the public sees Republicans and President Trump owning the ACA’s problems. Democrats are sure to call out Republicans and the administration for steps they have taken to undermine the law.

These include:

  • Eliminating the penalty for not buying insurance.
  • Failing to pass stabilization legislation.
  • Developing regulations to allow the sale of short-term policies and the wider sale of association health plans.

Taken together, these actions provide more options for the healthy, but will drive up rates overall.

Reality check: Last year, far more Americans came to believe they were affected by premiums increases than the relatively small number of unsubsidized people in the non-group market who were actually affected.

Our August 2017 tracking poll showed that fully 60% of the American people believed they were negatively affected by the premium increases, when in reality, just a sliver of the public — the unsubsidized people in the individual health insurance market — were actually affected.

The numbers that matter, per Kaiser Family Foundation estimates:

  • Affected: 6.7 million
  • Unaffected: 319 million

No doubt the broader public’s fears about rising premiums fueled cynicism about the ACA. Some political scientists say it contributed to the Republican victory in 2016.  In fact, premiums for most Americans with private coverage have been growing at a 3% clip, a historically moderate level.

The bottom line: As the midterms approach, Republicans’ first impulse may be to attack the law to rev up their base as they have done before. The tradeoff they face is that they now own the ACA in the eyes of the public, including the problem of rising premiums which they will have helped to create.

And Democrats now have a chance to score political points on the ACA for the first time — but the risk is a disproportionate public reaction, much like in 2016, that undermines the law they worked so hard to pass.

 

 

Five Worrisome Trends in Healthcare

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

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/72001?xid=fb_o_

healthcare; insurance; drugs; drug companies; Government-run Insurance Program Sure to Backfire | iHaveNet.com

A reckoning is coming, outgoing BlueCross executive says.

A reckoning is coming to American healthcare, said Chester Burrell, outgoing CEO of the CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield health plan, here at the annual meeting of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Burrell, speaking on Friday, told the audience there are five things physicians should worry about, “because they worry me”:

1. The effects of the recently passed tax bill. “If the full effect of this tax cut is experienced, then the federal debt will go above 100% of GDP [gross domestic product] and will become the highest it’s been since World War II,” said Burrell. That may be OK while the economy is strong, “but we’ve got a huge problem if it ever turns and goes back into recession mode,” he said. “This will stimulate higher interest rates, and higher interest rates will crowd out funding in the federal government for initiatives that are needed,” including those in healthcare.

Burrell noted that 74 million people are currently covered by Medicaid, 60 million by Medicare, and 10 million by the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), while another 10 million people are getting federally subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) insurance exchanges. “What happens when interest’s demand on federal revenue starts to crowd out future investment in these government programs that provide healthcare for tens of millions of Americans?”

2. The increasing obesity problem. “Thirty percent of the U.S. population is obese; 70% of the total population are either obese or overweight,” said Burrell. “There is an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and coronary artery disease coming from those demographics, and Baby Boomers will see these things in full flower in the next 10 years as they move fully into Medicare.”

3. The “congealing” of the U.S. healthcare system. This is occurring in two ways, Burrell said. First, “you’ll see large integrated delivery systems [being] built around academic medical centers — very good quality care [but] 50%-100% more expensive than the community average.”

To see how this affects patients, take a family of four — a 40-year-old dad, 33-year-old mom, and two teenage kids — who are buying a health insurance policy from CareFirst via the ACA exchange, with no subsidy. “The cost for their premium and deductibles, copays, and coinsurance [would be] $33,000,” he said. But if all of the care were provided by academic medical centers? “$60,000,” he said. “What these big systems are doing is consolidating community hospitals and independent physician groups, and creating oligopolies.”

Another way the system is “congealing” is the emergence of specialty practices that are backed by private equity companies, said Burrell. “The largest urology group in our area was bought by a private equity firm. How do they make money? They increase fees. There is not an issue on quality but there is a profound issue on costs.”

4. The undermining of the private healthcare market. “Just recently, we have gotten rid of the individual mandate, and the [cost-sharing reduction] subsidies that were [expected to be] in the omnibus bill … were taken out of the bill,” he said. And state governments are now developing alternatives to the ACA such as short-term duration insurance policies — originally designed to last only 3 months but now being pushed up to a year, with the possibility of renewal — that don’t have to adhere to ACA coverage requirements, said Burrell.

5. The lackluster performance of new payment models. “Despite the innovation fostering under [Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation] programs — the whole idea was to create a series of initiatives that might show the wave of the future — ACOs [accountable care organizations] and the like don’t show the promise intended for them, and there is no new model one could say is demonstrably more successful,” he said.

“So beware — there’s a reckoning coming,” Burrell said. “Maybe change occurs only when there is a rip-roaring crisis; we’re coming to it.” Part of the issue is cost: “As carbon dioxide is to global warming, cost is to healthcare. We deal with it every day … We face a future where cutbacks in funding could dramatically affect accessibility of care.”

“Does that mean we move to move single-payer, some major repositioning?” he said. “I don’t know, but in 35 years in this field, I’ve never experienced a time quite like this … Be vigilant, be involved, be committed to serving these populations.”

State Regulation of Coverage Options Outside of the Affordable Care Act: Limiting the Risk to the Individual Market

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2018/mar/state-regulation-coverage-options-outside-aca?omnicid=EALERT1377329&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Abstract

  • Issue: Certain forms of individual health coverage are not required to comply with the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). These “alternative coverage arrangements” — including transitional policies, short-term plans, health care sharing ministries, and association health plans — tend to have lower upfront costs and offer far fewer benefits than ACA-compliant insurance. While appealing to some healthy individuals, they are often unattractive, or unavailable, to people in less-than-perfect health. By leveraging their regulatory advantages to enroll healthy individuals, these alternatives to marketplace coverage may contribute to a smaller, sicker, and less stable ACA-compliant market. The Trump administration recently has acted to reduce federal barriers to these arrangements.
  • Goal: To understand how states regulate coverage arrangements that do not comply with the ACA’s individual health insurance market reforms.
  • Methods: Analysis of the applicable laws, regulations, and guidance of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
  • Findings and Conclusions: No state’s regulatory framework fully protects the individual market from adverse selection by the alternative coverage arrangements studied. However, states have the authority to ensure a level playing field among coverage options to promote market stability.

Background

Recent federal actions have created the potential for instability in the individual health insurance market, through which approximately 18 million Americans currently purchase their health insurance coverage.1 In October 2017, President Trump issued an executive order to encourage the sale of health insurance products that do not comply with the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).2 In December, Congress repealed, effective in 2019, the tax penalty for individuals who can afford to maintain health insurance coverage but decline to do so (the individual mandate penalty).3

Prior to health reform, insurers in the individual market had wide latitude to deny coverage, charge an unaffordable premium, or limit benefits based on a person’s medical history. As a consequence, individual market health insurance routinely proved inadequate for consumers’ health and financial needs and was often inaccessible to those with even minor health problems.4 The ACA established numerous consumer protections designed to make it easier for consumers in the individual market to access affordable, adequate health insurance. The law requires insurers that sell individual health insurance to offer coverage to all individuals regardless of health status, requires coverage of preexisting conditions, and prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums based on a person’s medical history or gender. It also includes limits on cost-sharing and requires insurers to cover a minimum set of essential health benefits, including coverage for mental and behavioral health care, prescription drugs, and maternity services.

For these consumer protections to work as intended and to keep premiums affordable, they need to be paired with policies that encourage a broad and balanced risk pool. To promote continuous enrollment by the sick and healthy alike, the ACA imposes an individual mandate and provides financial assistance to make coverage more affordable for those with lower and moderate incomes. Importantly, the ACA also defines what types of coverage were sufficiently protective for purposes of satisfying the individual mandate. To prevent cherry-picking of individuals who are low health risks, it also requires all individual market insurers to play by the same rules.

In many ways, the ACA’s regulatory approach to the individual market has proven successful. During the most recent open enrollment period, approximately 11.7 million Americans signed up for coverage through the ACA marketplaces (also called exchanges), most of whom are eligible for subsidies to help with the cost of coverage.5 In turn, improved access to comprehensive individual health insurance under the ACA, along with the expansion of Medicaid, has helped to reduce the uninsured rate by a third, as of 2018, and lower consumers’ average out-of-pocket costs.6 And, despite insurers’ continued uncertainty over the possible repeal of the health law and the Trump administration’s approach to implementing the ACA, analysis showed that, on average, states’ individual markets were stabilizing, with some insurers reaching profitability.7

However, challenges remain. In the past two years, the individual market in most states has seen significant increases in premiums, coupled with decreases in the number of participating insurers.8 While the ACA’s premium subsidies insulate many consumers from these price hikes, many millions of consumers are not eligible for subsidies, and those individuals identify the cost of coverage as a significant barrier to care.9 And though marketplace sign-ups remain stable despite federal policy uncertainty and Trump administration actions seen as undermining the ACA, enrollment remains well below early expectations.10

These challenges are interrelated and can be attributed to many factors. Still, the availability of coverage options that are not compliant with the ACA’s rules, as well as confusion over them, likely has played an important contributing role.

Policy Implications

Although states’ approaches to implementing the ACA can sharply differ, the law’s consumer protections operate nationwide, and nearly all states have taken responsibility for enforcing these reforms in their jurisdictions. The insurance exchanges in most states have proven resilient in the face of significant change and uncertainty, with millions of Americans now able to depend on individual health insurance to protect them both medically and financially.

However, maintaining a stable individual market will become more challenging, thanks to an environment in which healthy consumers are not required to maintain insurance and federal regulations are loosened to promote coverage arrangements likely to weaken insurance risk pools and raise premiums. These developments may incline healthy individuals to look increasingly outside the compliant market for coverage, leaving those who remain to face higher costs and fewer plan choices.68

Based on our review of state laws and standards, it appears that no state maintains a regulatory environment that fully protects its individual health insurance market from being undermined by the alternative coverage options we have identified. However, states continue to be the primary regulators of private health insurance. Although the ACA set a federal floor of consumer protections for insurers that operate in the individual market, it did not curtail states’ power to regulate above these minimum standards and to exercise full authority over coverage arrangements that fall outside the scope of federal insurance law.

How We Conducted This Study

This analysis is based on a review of applicable laws, regulations, and guidance enacted or promulgated prior to February 1, 2018, by each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This review was supplemented by correspondence with state regulators in 48 states and the District of Columbia.

A number of states have taken steps to limit the availability of non-ACA-compliant products and protect against adverse selection. Massachusetts and New York promptly discontinued transitional coverage and effectively prohibit underwritten short-term policies, while several other states tightly restrict the duration of such plans. Significantly, Massachusetts also has its own individual mandate, requiring state residents to maintain coverage that meets minimum standards.69 Other states have begun to explore enactment of similar policies in anticipation of the federal mandate’s 2019 repeal.

On many fronts, states face a federal regulatory approach to the individual market that is significantly different from what was originally envisioned under the Affordable Care Act. In light of these changed circumstances, there may be value for states in considering regulatory options for protecting their individual insurance markets and their insured beneficiaries from the detrimental effects of non-ACA-compliant policies. The decisions states make will likely have a significant impact on their residents’ access to adequate and affordable coverage and on the stability of their individual health insurance markets.

 

 

The ACA at Eight: Resilient but Still at Risk

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2018/mar/aca-at-eight?omnicid=EALERT1374267&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for The ACA at Eight: Resilient but Still at Risk

 

It’s Obamacare’s birthday. After eight years of relentless pounding, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is still the law of the land. Its resilience reflects the fundamental decency of the American people who — when faced with the reality of taking coverage away from millions of their neighbors — refused to let that happen. They filled town hall meetings, they flooded the corridors of Congress, and support for the law surged to its current 54 percent.

That is not to say that the law’s future is assured. As part of its recent tax reform legislation, Congress eliminated financial penalties for not having health insurance — the teeth of the so-called individual mandate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that this will raise health insurance premiums in individual private markets by an average of 10 percent, and 13 million Americans could lose their health insurance. If Congress fails to enact recent bipartisan market stabilization proposals, these numbers could go even higher.

The current administration is also using executive authority to weaken the law. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has encouraged states to impose a range of new restrictions on Medicaid recipients — work requirements, premiums, copays — that may reduce the number of poor and near-poor Americans who enroll in this program.

The administration has also proposed new rules that would allow health insurers to sell plans that evade the ACA’s standards regarding preexisting conditions and minimum benefits. For example, the administration would permit insurers to market short-term plans — coverage limited to a year in duration — without the requirement that they accept all comers, and with various restrictions on benefits. These cheaper, less generous plans would appeal to healthier individuals, who would then likely choose not to purchase the more expensive, comprehensive insurance sold in ACA marketplaces. Only sicker individuals would buy ACA plans, raising their costs and making them unaffordable to millions who have come to depend on them. The net effect is to add choices for healthy Americans, but reduce options for the sick.

Efforts to curtail the ACA will likely increase the number of Americans without insurance, now at a historic low of 14 percent of working-age adults, according to the Commonwealth Fund’s Affordable Care Act Tracking Survey. These efforts will also likely increase health disparities between states. A number of the restrictions sought by the administration will go into effect only if states embrace them. States must request waivers to limit Medicaid benefits. So far, only Republican-led states are doing so. Similarly, states have discretion about whether to permit the sale of short-term plans. Many blue states are considering banning or regulating them.

Despite these threats, however, fundamental elements of the ACA remain in effect. Federal financial assistance for purchase of health insurance in ACA marketplaces remains available for individuals with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. This is one reason why 11.8 million people had signed up for ACA plans through the marketplaces by the end of January. Federal support for states to expand Medicaid persists. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have done so, resulting in 15 million more beneficiaries of that program.

Recent legislative and executive restrictions on the ACA will not totally reverse these gains. Paradoxically, some states that refused previously to expand Medicaid may decide to do so now that they may be able to impose work requirements, premiums, and copays, and thus give expansion a conservative stamp. This could actually increase the total number of Americans with some Medicaid coverage.

In fact, the continuing struggle over the ACA fits a decades-old pattern of steady, if erratic, expansion of health insurance coverage in the United States. Since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid 53 years ago, the federal government has periodically extended insurance to new populations: the disabled, those with end-stage renal disease, children. The federal government also massively expanded Medicare benefits to cover drugs. Once provided, these benefits have proved politically difficult to peel back — in a recent poll, 92 percent of Americans said they felt all of us should have the right to health care.

What does this mean for the ACA? While it will not achieve all its supporters’ goals, it will survive, and provide a new foundation upon which Americans can build if they choose, as they have in the past, to help their vulnerable neighbors deal with the scourge of illness. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, one might even say that the arc of history is long, but it bends toward health coverage.