Tag: "Health Reform"

Here’s Something I Didn’t Know

This is courtesy of Chris Jacobs:

The Medicaid program is so bad that not a single Democrat voted to place themselves in the program when given an opportunity to do so back in 2010.

And there’s more:

ObamaCare will expand Medicaid – without reforming the program. According to the Administration’s own actuary, ObamaCare will add nearly 26 million more individuals to this broken program. At a time when states are struggling under the weight of budget deficits totaling a collective $175 billion, ObamaCare is imposing new unfunded mandates of at least $118 billion. And ObamaCare precludes states from taking many types of actions that would modernize the program – and crack down on fraud – because of the new federal requirements being imposed.

May 22, 2012 | 4 comments | by

Buying Health Insurance across State Lines

Last year, Georgia became the first state to allow insurers licensed in other states (and subject to other states’ mandates and regulations) to sell insurance in Georgia. But so far, no insurer has even applied. Why is that?

In an exchange between Richard Unger and Michael Cannon, Unger comes across as a general naysayer (offering no explanations of his own) but Cannon’s excuses seem weak: it’s administratively expensive for out-of-state insurance companies to enter the Georgia market, negotiate contracts, create new networks, etc. Here’s the problem: You don’t need out-of-state insurers to do this. In-state insurers (with contract and networks already in place) could in principle start selling insurance under some other state’s laws. Cannon also says that the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare and the general uncertainty about the implementation of ObamaCare are the culprits – an argument also endorsed by Avik Roy.

Okay, but how hard could it be to file and start selling a new type of insurance for companies already in the trade? After all, they’ve got to sell something.

I’m not convinced we have the right explanation here.

May 21, 2012 | 11 comments | by

MLR Killing Off Business, Hurting Consumers, NAIFA Survey Says

Agent commissions have declined dramatically since the medical loss ratio (MLR) provision of the health care reform law went into effect, forcing many agents to reduce their services to clients, consider charging fees for services they had been providing at no additional charge and in some cases, laying off employees and leaving the health insurance market.

That’s according to a survey by the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) of 861 of its members who sell health insurance. Seventy percent of respondents who sell health insurance have seen a decrease in commissions.

Almost a third are ready to leave the market. The survey reports that 30% say that if commissions remain depressed they will stop selling and servicing individual health policies and 22% say they will stop selling all health insurance.

How’s it going in your area?

Full article by Elizabeth Festa in LifeHealthPro.

May 17, 2012 | 11 comments | by

Mass: Insurance Doesn’t Lead to More Care

As did the Affordable Care Act, the Massachusetts reform incorporated substance abuse services into the essential benefits to be provided all residents. Prior to the law’s enactment, the state estimated that a half-million residents needed substance abuse treatment. Our mixed-methods exploratory study thus asked whether expanded coverage in Massachusetts led to increased addiction treatment, as indicated by admissions, services, or revenues. In fact, we observed relatively stable use of treatment services two years before and two years after the state enacted its universal health care law.

Full Health Affairs study on why expanded coverage alone will not increase treatment use.

May 17, 2012 | 7 comments | by

This is America?

The health reform law gave HHS the power to scrutinize “unreasonable” rate hikes in states that didn’t have robust review programs. But “scrutiny” doesn’t give the department power to actually block the rates from going into effect. HHS can use its bully pulpit to publicly shame insurers whose rates don’t pass its sniff test – and HHS has done just that, holding four media calls since November to scold insurers each time it’s made a new “unreasonable” determination.

The title of this article is “Jawboning by HHS Doesn’t Scare Insurers,” but maybe they should be scared.

May 16, 2012 | 5 comments | by

HSAs Under Attack

Three separate provisions in the statute, and regulations implementing the law, will reduce access to HSA plans:

  1. ObamaCare’s essential health benefits package contains new restrictions on deductibles and cost-sharing, which will prevent at least some current HSA plans from being offered.
  2. ObamaCare’s medical loss ratio regulations also impose new restrictions that studies show will hit HSA plans particularly hard, and could force individuals to change their current form of coverage.
  3. The ObamaCare statute does not specify that cash contributions made to an HSA will be counted towards the new federal actuarial value standards.  And a February bulletin released by HHS in advance of upcoming rulemaking indicates that under the Administration’s approach, not all contributions into an HSA will count towards the new minimum federal standards – meaning some HSA policies will not be considered “government-approved.”

More from Chris Jacobs on ObamaCare’s negative effect on health coverage.

May 15, 2012 | 6 comments | by

Insurance Companies: Without a Mandate We Are Going to Get Creamed

AHIP today released the first in a series of four state case studies examining states’ experiences with implementing market reforms without getting everyone covered. The first case study examines Washington State’s experience and shows that consumers experienced higher premiums and loss of choice following the enactment of guarantee issue without an individual mandate in the 1990′s. The full study can be viewed here and an accompanying press release can be found here. We will be releasing the next three state case studies over the course of the next several weeks.

This is from AHIP.

May 14, 2012 | 5 comments | by

Employers Can Gain By Dropping Coverage

The House Ways and Means Committee plans to release a report Tuesday that says 71 of the nation’s top companies could save almost $30 billion in 2014 by dropping health insurance coverage for their employees.

The committee surveyed 71 companies in the Fortune 100 and determined they could save more than $28 billion in 2014 alone by dropping insurance coverage and instead paying the $2,000-per-employee penalty. Savings over the following decade could be $422.4 billion.

More on this topic in the Kaiser Health News (gated). HT: Michael Ramlet.

May 01, 2012 | 4 comments | by

Reforming the FDA

“In many ways, the bill requires the FDA to do things that it is already supposed to do—once more, with feeling,” says Avik Roy. He’s talking about a bill introduced by Sens. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) Among other things, it would:

  • Retract the dumb 2007 conflict-of-interest rules for FDA advisory committees.
  • Create more accountability for meeting drug-review deadlines.
  • Stop forcing companies to do unnecessary and expensive busywork.
  • Take more advantage of clinical trials in other countries.

More on the “PATIENTS’ FDA Act” in the Forbes.

Apr 26, 2012 | 4 comments | by

How Romney’s Successor Subverted His Plan

Romney’s goal, with the individual mandate, was to require people to buy catastrophic insurance that would cover emergency care. Romney’s version of the mandate was designed to compensate for the effects of the federal EMTALA law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay…

However…when Deval Patrick assumed office, he populated the Health Connector board with progressives who favored mandating costly comprehensive insurance, instead of cheaper catastrophic coverage.

“The Romney administration had envisioned an unsubsidized exchange program that provided small employers with a healthy defined contribution model,” writes Archambault. “The model’s goals were to move the current employer-based system to an individual purchase decision and encourage competition and consumerism.”

But that’s not what the Patrick administration implemented. Instead, Massachusetts’ “Commonwealth Choice” plan forced insurers to offer standardized “Gold,” “Silver,” and “Bronze” plans that were required to offer generous, comprehensive coverage, including mental health, substance abuse, rehab services, and vision care. Small businesses could only offer their employees plans from one of the three tiers, further limiting consumer choices. (This framework is also part of the federal Affordable Care Act.)

More from Avik Roy.

Apr 16, 2012 | 2 comments | by
Next Page »