Editorial: It’s now or never to fix next year’s insurance exchange rates

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170603/MAGAZINE/170609997/editorial-its-now-or-never-to-fix-next-years-insurance-exchange-rates

Image result for it's now or never

As the ad hoc committee of 13 Republican senators rethinks the increasingly unpopular American Health Care Act, Congress and the administration face a more pressing question. Will they stabilize the individual insurance market for 2018?

Preliminary rate filings for next year suggest that some states are entering the first phases of the much-dreaded death spiral, where rising rates and declining enrollments feed on each other to climax in a collapsed market. Where last year it was mostly rural areas that suffered from a dearth of carriers offering exchange plans, major urban areas like Kansas City and Knoxville, Tenn., are now among the regions reporting no insurers interested in offering coverage.

Meanwhile, carriers are requesting double-digit rate hikes in many areas of the country. Increase requests as high as 50% have been reported.

Republicans blame the Affordable Care Act. But, in fact, blame rests squarely with the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, who’ve created tremendous uncertainty around the policies that make the ACA’s individual market work.

The biggest single problem is Congress’ failure to appropriate the $7 billion owed insurers for underwriting cost-sharing reductions for low-income plan purchasers. That affects about 7 million of the 13 million people who signed up for individual plans.

Last year, Congress also put a one-year hold on the surcharge on health insurance premiums that supports ACA subsidies. Without further action, the tax, which was slated to raise about $100 billion over the next decade, will go into effect in 2018.

From a budgetary perspective, the move is a wash. The increased tax collection will be offset by the increased subsidies given low-income people who buy plans. People who are unsubsidized—those most likely to be bitter opponents of Obamacare—will be hit dollar-for-dollar with the rate hike.

President Donald Trump​ also contributed to uncertainty over next year’s enrollment period. First, he halted media promotion of the 2017 open enrollment. Then, in February, he issued an executive order waiving the individual mandate, which is key to getting millions of younger, relatively healthy people into the individual market pool.

While Politico reported last month that the Internal Revenue Service didn’t carry out the president’s order this year, the atmospherics around these pronouncements will ensure that fewer people sign up for individual plans in 2018. Insurers are assuming they will be covering an older, sicker population, a surefire path to higher rates.

Last week, Bradley Wilson, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, dissected how these compounding uncertainties contributed to its request for a 22.9% rate hike. About half the increase came from the missing cost-sharing reduction subsidies; about a third from an expected increase in medical losses, driven by rising costs and a sicker pool; and the rest from the expected tax.

This Republican Congress and the administration could quickly solve these problems without sacrificing their political principles. The administration could signal it will enforce the mandate since it is still the law. Congress could appropriate the money for the cost-reduction subsidies. This would preserve the House’s lower court victory in its suit challenging the Obama administration’s lacking an appropriation.

And, in a nod to their goal of protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions, Congress could create a reinsurance program to cover the extraordinary expenses of high-cost patients in the individual market. Unlike state-run high-risk pools, which have never worked, a federally funded reinsurance program would preserve everyone’s access to health insurance in the individual market at affordable rates.

It’s up to Congress now. Insurers face a June 21 deadline for notifying HHS about participation in the exchanges, and final rates are due from states by Aug. 16; there’s not much time to act. We’ll soon find out if Trump and this Congress intend to deny millions of people access to affordable health insurance next year.

 

States Scramble to Prevent Obamacare Exodus

States scramble to prevent ObamaCare exodus

Image result for States Scramble to Prevent Obamacare Exodus

Insurance commissioners are pulling out all the stops to keep insurers from leaving their states amid uncertainty over ObamaCare’s future.

They are offering insurers new, previously unheard of flexibilities to try to keep them in the market.

But the effort faces an uphill climb, given the Trump administration’s wobbling over whether it will continue federal payments that compensate insurers for subsidizing out-of-pocket costs for lower-income households. There’s also the question of whether Congress will repeal ObamaCare this year.

Insurers are skittish and pleading for certainty from Washington. They want assurances that they will continue to receive cost-sharing reduction payments from the federal government, which total about $7 billion this year.

But no such promise appears forthcoming, prompting insurance commissioners to try and hold things together with later filing deadlines for enrollment and new concessions to insurers.

“As a regulator, instead of being rigid on timelines, the type of pricing I’m going to want, I’m being more open about this,” said John Franchini, New Mexico’s insurance superintendent. “I’m trying to be more flexible to give them confidence that if things change, we as regulators will be flexible with them.”

The biggest fear of the insurance commissioners is having every carrier pull out of a market, leaving people with no ObamaCare plans to buy. It’s a situation that hasn’t happened before, but could happen this year.

In several states, such as California, companies can file two different sets of premium requests: one for the continuation of ObamaCare — such as cost-sharing reduction payments and the enforcement of the individual mandate — and one for if both are discontinued.

“Based on what we were hearing from insurers, we anticipated Trump rates would be double-digit increases over the past year,” California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones said. “I wanted to give insurers the opportunity to file rates based on Trump.”

Insurers are facing imminent deadlines in many states to submit their preliminary premium requests and state whether they’ll stay in the market. They also face a June 21 deadline to tell the federal government whether they’ll participate in ObamaCare next year.

ERISA: A Bipartisan Problem For The ACA And The AHCA

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/06/02/erisa-a-bipartisan-problem-for-the-aca-and-the-ahca/

The Supreme Court has once again been called on to mediate the boundaries of a far-reaching, infamously complex, federal employee benefits law. And once again this law may have an important and unanticipated effect on health care.

The main goal of this law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), was to provide uniform, federal regulation of pensions and employee benefit plans (including health care). But the law has had a far more dramatic impact on health policy beyond what Congress ever contemplated. Because ERISA pushes aside state regulation of these plans, it has impeded the states’ ability to partner with the federal government to achieve key health policy goals. ERISA has also stymied some of Congress’s goals under the Affordable Care Act, and may prove an even greater obstacle to Republican efforts to return more authority over health policy to the states.

ERISA and health reform have not meshed well. For instance, the ACA’s attempt to create greater uniformity of benefits is at odds with the way ERISA creates a special class of protected plans and blocks states efforts to regulate them. When you ask yourself why the ACA’s guarantee of essential health benefits applies to some health plans but not to others, the answer is deference to ERISA. When you ask yourself why some health plans are subject to state-mandated benefit laws but some remain exempt, the answer is ERISA.

The US Supreme Court has not helped. The Court decided two important ERISA cases last term and has another one in the term about to conclude. Those interested in health care should watch this case closely. Last term, even as the Court acknowledged ERISA’s tensions with the ACA, it ruled that ERISA blocked Vermont’s attempt, through an all-payer claims database, to partner in the ACA’s efforts to make health care spending more transparent. States, including Alaska for example, struggle in the wake of this ruling to make an all-payer claims database work. In the second case, the Court indicated that ERISA might thwart a compromise in a dispute between the federal government and Christian nonprofit organizations over the ACA and contraception coverage.

This term, the fight involves the intersection of religion, health, and ERISA once again. And again, the Court must say how far ERISA reaches. ERISA exempts “church plans” from its broad regulation. The Supreme Court will decide whether the exemption for church plans, defined as plans “established and maintained” by houses of worship, applies narrowly to plans created by churches or, more broadly, also to those created by church-affiliated organizations. The three plans in this litigation and many plans in question are pension plans for employees at Catholic hospitals and health systems. In Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, consolidated with two other cases, the Court will determine whether Catholic hospitals—which now care for one in six patients in the U.S.—must guarantee the security of their employees’ pensions. Billions of dollars of pension shortfall and the financial security of 300,000 hospital workers are at stake.

We review the recent and upcoming ERISA jurisprudence below and conclude it is time for the Court, or Congress, to cabin ERISA’s reach when it comes to health care.

Senate GOP Considers Taxing Employer Plans in Bill

https://morningconsult.com/briefs/health-brief-senate-gop-considers-taxing-employer-plans-bill/

Image result for Senate GOP Considers Taxing Employer Plans in Bill

Washington Brief

  • Senate Republicans are considering taxing employer health insurance plans, but haven’t decided whether to include such a provision in a draft health care bill to repeal and replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act being crafted this week. (The Wall Street Journal)
  • The California State Senate advanced a bill to adopt a single-payer health care system on Thursday, but the measure does not include a way to pay for the $400 billion tab. (The Los Angeles Times)
  • Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity, conservative groups affiliated with the Koch Brothers, is urging HHS Secretary Tom Price to take action on “Phase 2” work that would undo parts of the ACA through regulation ahead of Congress passing a bill.

Business Brief

  • Premiums for policies sold on the individual market in Pennsylvania next year are set to increase by 8.8 percent on average, but the state’s insurance commissioner warned that could jump to a 36.3 percent increase if the Trump administration does not enforce certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. (Lancaster Online)
  • Hospital leaders are concerned that President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement could hurt peoples’ health. (Axios)
  • Health insurers participating in models to improve care for beneficiaries enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid originally struggled to find participants, but new data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows many have overcome that challenge. (Modern Healthcare)

In Washington state, a healthcare repeal lesson learned the hard way

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-washington-state-20170531-story.html

Image result for washington state healthcare

Republicans in the state of Washington didn’t wait long in the spring of 1995 to fulfill their pledge to roll back a sweeping law expanding health coverage in the state.

Coming off historic electoral gains, the GOP legislators scrapped much of the law while pledging to make health insurance affordable and to free state residents from onerous government mandates.

It didn’t work out that way: The repeal left the state’s insurance market in shambles, sent premiums skyrocketing and drove health insurers from the state. It took nearly five years to repair the damage.

Two decades later, the ill-fated experiment, largely relegated to academic journals, offers a caution to lawmakers at the national level as Republicans in the U.S. Senate race to write a bill to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.

“It’s much easier to break something,” said Pam MacEwan, who served on a Washington state commission charged with implementing the law in the mid-1990s and now oversees the state insurance market there. “It’s more difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. … And that’s when people get hurt.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office echoed that warning last week, when it concluded that the healthcare bill passed by the House last month would destabilize insurance markets in a sixth of the country and nearly double the number of people without health insurance over the next decade.

Senate Republican leaders contend that their legislation will be different. “We’re working to lower the costs and give people more personal, individual freedom,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said last week.

There were similar assurances in the Washington statehouse when legislators there began to pull apart the Washington Health Services Act in the mid-1990s.

 

 

BCBS of Georgia to stop covering ED visits it deems unnecessary

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/payer-issues/bcbs-of-georgia-to-stop-covering-ed-visits-it-deems-unnecessary.html

Image result for blue cross of georgia

Starting next month, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia will no longer cover emergency department services it determines are unnecessary for members with individual plans.

The insurer said the policy aims to steer patients with nonemergent symptoms to see a primary care physician, urgent care provider or use its LiveHealth telehealth app to limit costly ED visits. If a BCBS of Georgia policyholder receives care for nonemergent symptoms, a medical director will use the prudent layperson standard to deem whether the service is necessary.

Jeff Fusile, president of BCBS of Georgia, told WABE, “The cost of care’s been going up so much faster than people’s earnings. We have got to find a better way to do some of this stuff, taking some of that unnecessary spending out of the system.”

The policy does not include referrals from a physician to the ED for nonemergent services, nonemergent services provided to children under age 14, instances when an urgent care clinic is more than 15 miles away and when care is administered on Sundays and major holidays.

“We’re not trying to steer people away from the emergency room if they have a serious condition,” Debbie Diamond, director of publications for BCBS of Georgia, told Becker’s Hospital Review. “If a member is having chest pain that they think is a heart attack, they should still go to the emergency department.”

Ms. Diamond said similar policies have been enacted at Anthem-affiliated plans in Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia. Missouri said it would reinforce the program June 1 and Kentucky enacted the policy in 2015.

Donald Palmisano, president of the Medical Association of Georgia, told WABE the policy disproportionately affects the elderly, rural residents and children over the age of 14. He added physicians are concerned the policy places “the patient, who doesn’t have the clinical background, to determine whether their condition is of an emergency nature.”

Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Image result for Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Before private insurance market rules in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took effect in 2014, health insurance sold in the individual market in most states was medically underwritten.1  That means insurers evaluated the health status, health history, and other risk factors of applicants to determine whether and under what terms to issue coverage. To what extent people with pre-existing health conditions are protected is likely to be a central issue in the debate over repealing and replacing the ACA.

This brief reviews medical underwriting practices by private insurers in the individual health insurance market prior to 2014, and estimates how many American adults could face difficulty obtaining private individual market insurance if the ACA were repealed or amended and such practices resumed.  We examine data from two large government surveys: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), both of which can be used to estimate rates of various health conditions (NHIS at the national level and BRFSS at the state level). We consulted field underwriting manuals used in the individual market prior to passage of the ACA as a reference for commonly declinable conditions.

 

Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Image result for Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Significant changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are being considered by lawmakers who have been critical of its general approach to providing coverage and to some of its key provisions. An important area where changes will be considered has to do with how people with health problems would be able to gain and keep access to coverage and how much they may have to pay for it.  People’s health is dynamic. At any given time, an estimated 27% of non-elderly adults have health conditions that would make them ineligible for coverage under traditional non-group underwriting standards that existed prior to the ACA. Over their lifetimes, everyone is at risk of having these periods, some short and some that last for the rest of their lives.

One of the biggest changes that the ACA made to the non-group insurance market was to eliminate consideration by insurers of a person’s health or health history in enrollment and rating decisions.  This assured that people who had or who developed health problems would have the same plan choices and pay the same premiums as others, essentially pooling their expected costs together to determine the premiums that all would pay.

Proposals for replacing the ACA such as Rep. Tom Price’s Empowering Patients First Act and Speaker Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” policy paper would repeal these insurance market rules, moving back towards pre-ACA standards where insurers generally had more leeway to use individual health in enrollment and rating for non-group coverage.1  Under these proposals, people without pre-existing conditions would generally be able to purchase coverage anytime from private insurers.  For people with health problems, several approaches have been proposed: (1) requiring insurers to accept people transitioning from previous coverage without a gap (“continuously covered”); (2) allowing insurers to charge higher premiums (within limits) to people with pre-existing conditions who have had a gap in coverage; and (3) establishing high-risk pools, which are public programs that provide coverage to people declined by private insurers.

The idea of assuring access to coverage for people with health problems is a popular one, but doing so is a challenge within a market framework where insurers have considerable flexibility over enrollment, rating and benefits.  People with health conditions have much higher expected health costs than people without them (Table 1 illustrates average costs of individuals with and without “deniable” health conditions). Insurers naturally will decline applicants with health issues and will adjust rates for new and existing enrollees to reflect their health when they can.  Assuring access for people with pre-existing conditions with limits on their premiums means that someone has to pay the difference between their premiums and their costs.  For people enrolling in high-risk pools, some ACA replacement proposals provide for federal grants to states, though the amounts may not be sufficient.  For people gaining access through continuous coverage provisions, these costs would likely be paid by pooling their costs with (i.e., charging more to) other enrollees.  Maintaining this pooling is difficult, however, when insurers have significant flexibility over rates and benefits.  Experience from the pre-ACA market shows how insurers were able to use a variety of strategies to charge higher premiums to people with health problems, even when those problems began after the person enrolled in their plan.  These practices can make getting or keeping coverage unaffordable.

The discussion below focuses on some of the issues faced by people with health issues in the pre-ACA non-group insurance market.  These pre-ACA insurance practices highlight some of the challenges in providing access and stable coverage for people and some of the issues that any ACA replacement plan will need to address. Many ACA replacement proposals have not yet been developed in sufficient detail to fully deal with these questions, or in some cases may defer them to the states.

We start by briefly summarizing key differences between the ACA and pre-ACA insurance market rules for non-group coverage that affect access and continuity of coverage.  We then focus on pre-ACA access and continuity issues for three different groups: (1) people transitioning from employer coverage or Medicaid to the non-group market; (2) people with non-group coverage who develop a health problem; and (3) people who are uninsured (are not considered to have continuous coverage) who want to buy non-group coverage.  After that, we discuss how medical underwriting and rating practices can segment a risk pool, initially and over time, and challenges that this poses for assuring continuous coverage.  We end by reviewing some of the policy choices for addressing the challenges that have been raised.

ACA Repeal Resource: California’s Individual Market Before Health Reform

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2017/02/ca-indiv-market-before-aca

Image result for California's Individual Market Before Health Reform

This overview describes California’s individual market before the Affordable Care Act and identifies potential concerns if the ACA is repealed.

The individual (nongroup) market is an important fallback option for those who are not offered health insurance coverage through their employers and do not qualify for public programs such as Medi-Cal or Medicare. Independent contractors, part-time employees, low-wage workers at businesses that do not offer coverage, people moving between jobs, and the unemployed all fall into this category of people who will need to turn to the individual market if they want health coverage.

Prior to the ACA, fewer than 10% of Californians obtained individual health insurance at any given time. The ACA established new health insurance marketplaces, provided new financial subsidies for low- and moderate-income people to purchase individual health insurance, imposed new regulations on health plans (like guaranteed issue, banning insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions), and required individuals to maintain coverage or face penalties. By 2015, two years into ACA implementation, almost 17% of Californians received coverage through the individual market.

This overview offers historical context about California’s individual market before the ACA and identifies potential concerns in the event that the ACA’s provisions reshaping the individual market are repealed.

The ‘Medicaidization’ Of The Health Insurance Marketplaces: A Necessary Trend

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/05/08/the-medicaidization-of-the-health-insurance-marketplaces-a-necessary-trend/

A woman helps someone sign up for health insurance at healthcare.gov

When stripped of emotion and hyperbole, the debate about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is fundamentally about how to stretch limited funds to offer health care to two populations in need: the poor, who receive health care through Medicaid, and the “near-poor,” who were frequently without coverage prior to the ACA’s enactment. While millions of the near-poor remain uninsured today, six out of 10 limited-income individuals who purchased health care through the ACA’s health insurance Marketplaces were uninsured prior to the ACA. It is this near-poor and recently insured population, and how to cost-effectively provide health care for them, that is the focus of this post.

Many insurers have ably managed their sicker- and poorer-than-expected Marketplace membership by borrowing from the playbook of the most similar market, Medicaid. In short, we believe that the “Medicaidization” of the Marketplaces is a necessary and positive trend, and we remind policy makers that regardless of legislation or regulatory change, health plans must employ the Medicaidization playbook to well-serve a population that both parties believe needs coverage.

Health insurance Marketplaces—the centerpiece of the ACA—provide health insurance in government-refereed individual and small-group markets. However, health plans offering coverage through Marketplaces have been confronted with challenges. Enrollment is roughly 12 million, far behind original Congressional Budget Office projections of 21 million by 2016. This is largely because fewer employers than expected dropped employee coverage after the law passed and because many younger and healthier people have chosen to remain uninsured or covered by their parents’ insurance. As a whole, Marketplace enrollees are sicker and more costly than expected, and more than 80 percent receive means-tested subsidies to buy down some of their insurance costs. Furthermore, lawsuits and congressional actions have hobbled the ACA’s risk mitigation programs and threaten its subsidies. As a result, several health plans left the Marketplaces in 2017 in many states, and at least one—Humana—will exit entirely in 2018.

While the struggles of the ACA-reformed markets and the insurers that operate within those markets are well-documented, there have also been some success stories. Medicaid-focused health plans, as well as commercial plans that adopted tactics common in the Medicaid market, have performed at near break-even or better while serving the near-poor population in the Marketplaces. The relative success of Medicaid-focused plans in the Marketplaces contrasts with the struggles of national for-profit insurers and has led to the Medicaidization of the Marketplaces.

The term “Medicaidization” is not new to this post. It has been used by others, sometimes with a negative connotation. So it is helpful to define the term more precisely. Medicaidization, as used here, describes a set of practices—from sensitivity to sociocultural issues to utilization management—that have evolved to serve the Medicaid population. Because of socioeconomic disadvantage and poor health, this population responds to its health care needs very differently than other populations. However, the term “Medicaidization” belies the fact that health plans beyond those that focus on Medicaid are capable of deploying these same practices—such as several Blues and provider-owned plans—as described below.