Colorado Health Insurance Insider

No-cost broker assistance.

You are here: Home / Archives for Health Insurance Exchanges

Health Insurance Exchanges

Health Wonk Review – Campaign 2012 Edition

By

All of the vote candidates are well qualified and knowledgeable about healthcare, from many different angles.  And they all write quite convincingly.  Some take polar opposite positions, while others lean more toward the center.  I’ll summarize each candidate’s platform, and you can get all the details by clicking on the names.  Once you’re finished, cast your vote for your favorite in the comments.  Be warned, however – you will have a hard time choosing!

Ladies and gentlemen, here are your candidates for Wonkiest Health Wonk 2012:

Anthony Wright‘s camp is taking issue with Rep. Dave Camp’s position that the ACA is the reason for the decrease in the percentage of employers who offer health insurance benefits and the increase in premiums (both trends that were well established long before the ACA was crafted, and as Anthony points out, most of the provisions of the ACA haven’t been implemented yet).  Rep. Camp quoted Wright on his website, and mis-used the words to support his position that the ACA is to blame for the current problems.  Anthony is – quite understandably – unimpressed.

Joe Paduda‘s platform is all about taking aim at Mitt Romney’s enjoyment of firing people – and insurance companies.  Although it sounds nice (and very “free-market-y”) to say that if you don’t like your health insurance company you can just fire them, that isn’t usually the case.  Joe explains how most people have limited options (if any at all) when it comes to their health insurance, particularlySIA2008-1616 if they have any health conditions.  Firing ones health insurance carrier isn’t really a possibility for most of the population.  Joe’s common sense approach should win over a lot of voters.

Gary Schwitzer‘s campaign is focused on calling out half-truths and shoddy journalism.  He cites an example of an ABC News segment that purports to be a journalistic look at a new “lifesaving” technology.  But it might just be blatant self-promotion on the part of the doctor being interviewed.  And even worse, it might convince countless viewers that they need the same high-tech test (along with several others that are mentioned in the story), despite the far less flashy stories about the comparative effectiveness data that indicate that the tests in question aren’t really useful for low-risk individuals.  And that leads to over-utilization of healthcare.  Which leads to increased healthcare spending.  Which leads to higher health insurance premiums.  Which leads to more people […]

A Brain Teaser Cavalcade Of Risk

By

[…] Jaan Sidorov’s article about health insurance exchanges is really good (and I had to read it to figure out the correct answer to the question for his post – it was one of the two I missed). He notes that it’s a bit illogical that so many of us are willing to spend hours comparison shopping for a new TV, but feel put out if we have to spend much time at all comparison shopping for health insurance. And he laments the fact that health insurance exchanges are in their very early days but already are being dismissed by some as too complicated for the average consumer to figure out.

Interesting Reading In The HHS Bulletin On Essential Health Benefits

By

[…] I particularly appreciated Jaan’s link to this bulletin about Essential Health Benefits from the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. It’s a comprehensive look at how EHB will be defined based on the current proposal from HHS, and it includes a call for public comment between now and the end of January 2012. In reading through the bulletin, I was especially interested in the bottom of page 7. They note that in states that mandate coverage for in-vitro fertilization, the mandate increases average health insurance premiums by about one percent. And in states that mandate coverage for Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy for autism, that mandate results in average premiums being 0.3% higher than they would be without it.

We’ve written a few times about infertility treatments and health insurance, and it’s always generated a lot of (usually quite polarized) comments. People tend to feel strongly one way or the other, often based on their own experiences or those of friends and family members. People who have had to fork over tens of thousands of dollars to pay for IVF tend to be more sympathetic to the idea that health insurance coverage of fertility treatments would be a good thing. Those who have been able to conceive without medical interventions and those who have no desire to have children tend to balk at the idea of paying higher health insurance premiums to cover fertility treatments for other people. But would knowing that mandates on fertility treatment have only increased premiums by about one percent make a difference in how those people feel? […]

HHS Allowing States To Define Essential Benefits In The Exchanges

By

[…] Colorado already has a comprehensive small group benefits mandate. Until this year, one of the most glaring differences between small group and individual plans was that individual policies in Colorado were not required to cover maternity. But that changed in January when all new and renewing individual policies had to begin covering maternity. I would say that the primary difference now between most of the individual plans and small group plans in Colorado is that the small group policies are guaranteed issue, whereas the individual plans are medically underwritten. But in 2014, when the exchanges get underway, the individual policies will be guaranteed issue too. Individual policies are still quite a bit less expensive than group policies in Colorado, but I wonder if that will change too once the exchanges get underway? It would seem so, since the benefits and underwriting will be virtually identical.

The small group market in Colorado is already quite structured by state mandates. The individual market also has quite a few mandates, including the new maternity benefit mandate. But it appears that the individual policies that are sold in the exchanges beginning in 2014 will have benefits at least as comprehensive as the benefits offered by the largest small group plans in Colorado. That means that “bottom of the heap” individual plans (ie, the ones with tons of fine print and huge holes in their coverage) probably won’t be making an appearance in the exchange, or at least not without a serious overhaul. […]

Will Large Groups Encourage Sick Employees To Seek Coverage In The Exchanges?

By

[…] Amy Monahan suggested that there could be a law making employees ineligible for coverage in the exchanges if they are eligible for employer group coverage. Or there’s the possibility of a law similar to the one that Colorado designed to protect the state’s high risk pool from a similar scenario – employers here can’t reimburse employees for individual health insurance premiums if they have had a group plan in place within the past twelve months (in the case of the exchanges, they could make employees ineligible for coverage in the exchanges for at least a year after leaving a group plan, assuming they are still eligible for coverage under the group plan and have just opted out). Either option would help to protect the exchanges, but they don’t do much to prevent employers from structuring their health insurance policies to make healthcare significantly more expensive for the sickest employees. […]
A lot of this remains to be seen. The health care reform law still has to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and we have a major election cycle next year and another full legislative year after that. But if everything about the PPACA remains as it is now, lawmakers will eventually have to address the possibility of self-insured employers designing health insurance plans that encourage their sickest employees to opt for coverage in the exchanges instead.

Access To Healthcare In Colorado Worsening

By

The Colorado Health Access Survey results were released earlier this month, and the results aren’t particularly surprising given the state of the economy for the past few years. The total number of uninsured Colorado residents is now 829,000 – up from 678,000 in 2009. The survey also counts the number of “underinsured” residents (those who aren’t able to afford their out-of-pocket expenses that total more than 10% of their income, or 5% for those below the poverty line). The two categories – uninsured and underinsured – amount to 1.5 million people, which is about a third of the Colorado population.

The 22% increase in the number of uninsured residents came despite strong efforts in Colorado to expand access to Medicaid and CHP+ over the past few years. Without the expansion of those programs, the numbers would undoubtedly be even more bleak. […]

Health Insurance Exchange Payroll and Admin Expenses

By

[…] One of the comments on the post was from Dede de Percin, the Executive Director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative (CCHI). […] Dede’s comment on my article referenced the point I made about consumers not having to pay additional fees to have a broker. Basically, health insurance is priced the same whether you go directly through a health insurance carrier (calling Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield directly, for example) or through a broker (who will compare options from multiple carriers for you). Dede made this point:
“While a consumer or business doesn’t not pay a health insurance broker directly, broker fees and commissions are paid by the insurance companies – and rolled into […]”

Colorado Legislators Delay Health Benefits Exchange Grant Application

By

[…] That issue again appears to be a sticking point, with Colorado House Republicans blocking the health insurance exchange board from applying for a $22 million grant because the application mentioned changing Colorado regulations to “conform to federal requirements”. The grant application is due at HHS on Friday, and the exchange board will not be able to meet that deadline. They are hoping, however, to address the legislator’s concerns and be able to get the application submitted by the end of the year, to be considered in the second round of funding. […]

Colorado Health Insurance Exchange Board Hires Attorney General’s Office

By

[…] I’m confident that the Colorado Attorney General’s office will be able to provide competent legal advice to the exchange board. In addition, it appears that the board is getting an excellent value, since they’ll be paying less than $79/hour for a lawyer. But I assume that John Suthers is hoping to prevail in the lawsuit challenging the individual mandate, and I am a bit skeptical about whether the rest of the ACA (including the health insurance exchanges) could survive without the individual mandate.

Negotiating Premiums Doesn’t Lower The Cost Of Healthcare

By

[…] How would it help to have health insurance exchange boards negotiating with health insurance carriers to try to lower premiums – without addressing the root problem, which is the ever-increasing cost of healthcare? […] Much of the focus of the healthcare reform rhetoric has been on health insurance (availability, premiums, etc.), and some important issues have been addressed in the process. But we cannot continue to focus primarily on the cost of health insurance (or try to artificially lower it) without reducing the cost of healthcare.

Federal Requirements For State Exchanges

By

[…] The guidelines that HHS set forth were designed to make sure that state-specific exchanges meet basic minimum standards, while still allowing the states to accomplish many of those standards however they see fit. And although some would criticize HHS for being too restrictive, others have said that the agency did all they could to keep things as simple and flexible as possible. […]

Balancing Interests In The Colorado Health Insurance Exchange

By

[…] The Colorado exchange has received some early criticism based on the make-up of the board, as several board members have ties – direct and indirect – to the health insurance industry. I’ve noted that my own opinion is that it would tough to implement a successful exchange without the knowledge of the health insurance industry that those board members bring to the table. But I think that the board’s election of Hammer to lead them does help to balance things out and make sure that the consumer voice is heard alongside that of the health insurance industry. […]

More On Health Insurance Exchanges

By

[…] We need exchanges that are easy to navigate, accessible for people who are not fluent in English, and that provide seamless access to the subsidies that the PPACA provides to help people afford health insurance. I’ve already pointed out that we’re going to have to walk a fine line in terms of keeping things fair for both insureds and insurers, in order to attract as many enrollees and high quality insurers as possible to the exchanges. […]

The Challenge Of Creating Unbiased Health Insurance Exchanges

By

[…] In order to attract high-quality health insurance carriers to the exchanges, we have to make sure that the exchanges represent a business environment that is appealing to carriers. We also have to make their appealing and fair to consumers, in order to attract enough people into the exchanges. To work well, the exchanges will need to have a delicate balance between the interests of consumers, providers, and health insurer carriers, with no one group more heavily favored than another.

Comparison Shopping For Health Insurance

By

[…] But in terms of being a comparison-shopping website for health insurance, I’m struck by how much that sounds like the service we’ve been offering our clients for years. The exchanges will function mostly online, which was a transition we made back in 2003 when we established our website and started working with carriers to get online applications for our clients. We realized soon after getting into the health insurance industry that there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to health insurance, and that it didn’t make sense to only represent one or two carriers. […]

A Good Summary Of The HHS Proposed Regulations For Exchanges

By

[…] The proposed regulations from HHS for the exchanges come to 244 pages, but Timothy notes that they are “practical, sensible, and functional” and that HHS tried to simplify things wherever possible, rather than complicate them. For anyone who wants to get the gist of the proposed regulations without reading the 244 pages that HHS released this month, I highly recommend that you check out Timothy’s article. […]