Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Is Unlikely to Lower Costs or Improve Choice

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/apr/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines?omnicid=EALERT1190217&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for selling healthcare across state lines

In the wake of the failure of the legislative effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the fate of another of the president’s health care priorities is unclear. In his first congressional address, President Trump articulated five principles for health care reform. His fifth and last called for giving “Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across state lines,” a reform that, in his words, would create “a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.” This concept was not in the House reconciliation bill (the “American Health Care Act” or AHCA) to repeal and replace key provisions of the ACA, but President Trump may be able to use his regulatory authority to promote the cross-border sales of health insurance.

The president has the authority to act on his own thanks in part to the ACA. That law includes a provision encouraging “health care choice compacts,” whereby an insurer could establish itself in one state and sell health insurance to consumers in multiple other states without having to follow those states’ laws and regulations. However, under President Obama, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) never published regulations enabling these cross-state sales.

While the ACA provision encourages states to enter into cross-state regulatory agreements in order to facilitate interstate sales, under Trump’s campaign and several congressional proposals, the federal government would effectively override states’ authority to regulate their markets. In the absence of legislative action, there is nothing preventing HHS Secretary Tom Price from issuing the required regulations and working with states to develop standards for interstate sales. In fact, several states already allow cross-state sales.

 

3 Republican concepts for replacing the ACA — and what they mean

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/3-republican-concepts-for-replacing-the-aca-and-what-they-mean/437475/

The bottom line

These policy ideas popular among conservatives could certainly push health insurance costs down for some — like those with few healthcare needs and reliable income — but they also would undoubtedly offer fewer benefits to those with low incomes and high healthcare costs.

“The value of the policies that insurers are offering is going to go down under all these options,” Blumberg said. “They’re going to end up attracting the higher needs population and they can’t sustain that.”

Hospitals would see significant revenue losses if millions lose coverage under repeal of the ACA and are unable to afford new coverage under the replacement plans the GOP has put forward. Some executives have warned they would have to cut vital services, such as behavioral health.

A report prepared for the American Hospital Association found that hospital revenues would decrease nearly $400 billion between 2018 and 2026 with ACA repeal. The plans put forward by Republicans would barely dent that projection, experts say.


Hospital revenues are projected to decrease by $400 billion between 2018 and 2026 under ACA repeal, according to the AHA.


The leaders of the American Hospital Association and Federation of American Hospitals have written to President Donald Trump asking him not to repeal the ACA without an adequate replacement.

“Losses of this magnitude cannot be sustained and will adversely impact patients’ access to care, decimate hospitals’ and health systems’ ability to provide services, weaken local economies that hospitals help sustain and grow, and result in massive job losses,” they wrote. “As you know, hospitals are often the largest employer in many communities, and more than half of a hospital’s budget is devoted to supporting the salaries and benefits of caregivers who provide 24/7 coverage, which cannot be replaced.”

Republicans continue to debate whether, how and when to replace the ACA. Just as the reform law had major impacts on the industry, the process of finding alternatives will have significant consequences as well.

 

The Myth of a Cheap Obamacare Replacement

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-paul-20170117-story.html?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=41037755&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8pBWi30RdOLslYQ89FMuSTb8hSonUKKpIqWGUR6-WRPjXZJxVIUiM49YQ6dDiBROgviwVLxtxSEKFVcIPLyvnTm-UpMQ&_hsmi=41037755

The 10 essential health benefits required of any qualifying Obamacare plan: Which would you want to do without?

News on the Obamacare-replacement front was dominated this past weekend by Donald Trump and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who both touted their Obamacare replacement plans.

To be absolutely precise, they touted the claim that they had Obamacare replacement plans. They didn’t go into any great detail about what would be in those plans. (That didn’t stop CNN from captioning its interview with Paul, “Rand Paul Releases Obamacare Replacement Details.”)

The few details, or guideposts, or guidelines that they did disclose only underscored how difficult it will be for Trump, Paul and the the Republicans on Capitol Hill to fashion a replacement that meets all their stated goals. For Trump, according to an interview with the Washington Post published Sunday, this includes “insurance for everybody” that will encompass “great health care … in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” He promised “lower numbers, much lower deductibles.”

Paul, speaking on CNN’s Sunday morning “State of the Union” program, said his plan would “insure the most amount of people, give access to the most amount of people, at the least amount of cost.” That sounds like a set of concrete goals, but actually they’re ambiguous. “Most people” compared to what? “Least cost” compared to what?

Before we get into the details, such as they are, we should recognize that if one takes as the goal of healthcare policy to provide universal coverage in which everyone is “beautifully covered,” as Trump promised, then a few limitations immediately appear. Health coverage is the product of three factors: How many people are covered; the benefits provided; and the cost of those benefits. Since the 1940s, U.S. politicians and policymakers have tried to find a balance among these factors. Every effort has been confounded by the immutable facts that treating the sick costs money and treating more people costs more money. One can save money by treating fewer people, or giving the same number of people less treatment. So any politician who says he can do more for less money is almost certainly blowing smoke.

How do the Trump and Paul “details” stack up?

Why selling insurance across state lines is an unlikely solution

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/why-selling-insurance-across-state-lines-is-an-unlikely-solution/429610/

Proposals to sell insurance across state lines have been floating around for a while. In 2005, Congress considered the first proposal to sell insurance across state lines at the federal level. Many of the candidates running in the recent Republican presidential primary endorsed the idea, including Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. A proposal to sell insurance across state lines is a core component of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s healthcare agenda.

With election day approaching and attention returning to plans that would allow the sale of insurance across state lines, it is worth asking whether these proposals would be effective.