Colorado Health Insurance Insider

No-cost broker assistance.

You are here: Home / Archives for Health Insurance Reform

Health Insurance Reform

Another Perspective On Healthcare Spending In The US

By

When the values are graphed, the US appears to be a significant outlier. Our per-capita GDP does put us near the top of the scale, but our per-capita healthcare spending is dramatically higher (to the tune of more than 50% higher) than any of the other countries, even those that have a similar or higher GDP.

Jaan lets out his inner economist in this post, and provides interesting reasoning to explain the US position on the per-capita GDP/healthcare spending graph. His discussion about our wealth inequality may be a key factor. One would otherwise expect Luxembourg and Norway (with per capita GDP higher than or equal to the US) to have healthcare spending that is similar to that of the US. But since our healthcare spending is tallied on the per-person basis, our wealth inequality might make the average spending data appear skewed.

In addition to comparing our healthcare spending to religious tithing (where one is expected to give 10% of ones income to the church), Jaan notes that our willingness to spend more on our healthcare “doesn’t mean that we’re getting our money’s worth…”

Lack Of Public Understanding About Healthcare Reform Law

By

This article from Public News Service highlights some of the hurdles the ACA faces in terms of public opinion. An attorney with the Colorado Center on Law and Policy notes that more than 50% of consumers think that the healthcare reform law is creating a new government-run health insurance policy. Given the general unpopularity of government-run programs in general, it’s not surprising that the healthcare reform law has struggled in the court of popular opinion. The public tends to be quite wary of new government programs, especially before they’re in place. Once they’re up and running – like Medicare for example -they sometimes get a bit more popular. But proposing a new government program is generally a good way to get people fired up.

If you’ve been paying attention to the mundane details of the ACA, you know that there’s no new government-run health insurance plan. The public option got nixed from the healthcare reform strategy right from the beginning. The law does expand some of our public health programs that already exist (like Medicaid and CHIP). It seeks to insure most of the currently uninsured population via increased enrollment in private health insurance plans and expanded access to public health insurance. The individual mandate and guaranteed issue individual health insurance will hopefully result in far fewer people without health insurance. In addition, the provision that allows young people to remain on their parents’ health insurance through age 26 is helping to cut down on the number of young Americans without health insurance. […]

Preauthorizations And Legal-eze: Why Health Insurers Have To Use Them

By

[…] Starting in 2014, health insurance will be guaranteed issue and all of us will be required to have coverage. But until then, individual health insurance is priced based on medical underwriting and (in most cases) slightly less comprehensive benefits than group policies. That’s why it’s less expensive to have an individual policy than a group policy or a guaranteed issue policy like CoverColorado. If health insurance carriers (both individual and group) don’t go over their claims closely and utilize preauthorizations, they run the risk of being defrauded – which will only drive premiums higher than they already are. If they don’t use the specific legal-eze required by state regulations, they will run afoul of the Division of Insurance.

There are plenty of examples of health insurance carriers using unfair or deceptive practices. We’re lucky in Colorado to have a strong Division of Insurance that works hard to protect consumers. Regulations that protect patients and insureds from unfair business practices are largely beneficial (and tend to weed out the shady insurance carriers). But Jaan’s article highlights the fact that health insurance carriers also have to protect themselves. If they don’t, they will end up with premiums that are far higher than the rest of their competition – and that isn’t sustainable.

Health Wonk Review At The Healthcare Economist

By

[…] One of the most interesting pieces in this edition comes from Avik Roy, writing at Forbes about the historical relationship between political conservatives and individual mandates for health insurance. It’s a long article, but definitely worth reading. The individual mandate is going to be on everyone’s radar this year (if it wasn’t already) once it gets taken up by the Supreme Court. Roy’s piece gives us a bit of perspective on how political viewpoints regarding an individual mandate have changed over the decades.

Jon Stewart Interview With Sebelius Focuses Mostly On Health Insurance

By

[…] I get the point that Stewart and Sebelius were making. They were addressing the aspects of the ACA that most directly impact people, since health insurance tends to be where most of us interact with healthcare costs. And the interview did – very briefly – touch on healthcare costs when Stewart mentioned that one of the reasons wages have stagnated is because “healthcare costs keep going up.” That is a key point, but they seemed to only be addressing it from the standpoint of health insurance premiums continuing to go up. It’s true that the actual check the employer writes each month to cover healthcare is paid in the form of health insurance premiums. But we have to address the root cause here, rather than just trying to figure out how to reign in premiums.

Steward did ask – in his usual joking manner – whether we all need to start exercising and eating better, which also touches briefly on the idea that a healthier nation would have lower healthcare costs. But overall, nearly the entire interview focused on how the ACA will impact health insurance. While that makes for an interesting interview, it also presents the ACA (at least as far as pop culture is concerned) as health insurance reform rather than healthcare reform. While there were definitely aspects of health insurance that needed reform, addressing health insurance as if it’s the crux of the issue is very much putting the cart before the horse.

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 […]

Retiree-Only Health Insurance Plans And The ACA

By

[…] Sandy’s daughter ended up getting an individual health insurance policy for $143/month. But individual health insurance in Colorado is medically underwritten (and will be for almost two more years until the guaranteed-issue provision of the ACA begins in 2014), which means that she had to be relatively healthy in order to qualify for coverage and/or avoid an underwriting rate increase. The benefit of the ACA rule that allows young adults to remain on their parents’ plan is that there is no need for additional underwriting – the coverage is continuous, regardless of any new medical issues that might have arisen since the plan was originally purchased. This can be very useful for young adults with pre-existing conditions who haven’t yet secured a job that provides guaranteed issue group health insurance coverage.

I don’t know what percentage of the population is covered by retiree-only health plans, but it seems that group might be more likely than others to have children who are young adults. I’m sure Sandy and her husband aren’t the only parents to have found out that the ACA doesn’t apply to their retiree-only health plan. […]

Thoughts On The Supreme Court’s Look At The ACA

By

[…] Joe’s take on the court battle is that the Supreme Court is unlikely to go against the majority of the lower courts that have ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate. And he’s got lots of other well-thought-out opinions on the subject – his post is a must read if you’re interested in the legality of the ACA.

Personally, I’m with Joe on this one. I believe that opting to go without health insurance is in fact opting to self-insure, since the likelihood of people needing no medical care at all is slim. For people who can truly afford to self-insure, there might be an argument to be made in terms of their right to do so (Rush Limbaugh? Maybe. The rest of us who don’t earn $33 million per year? Not so much). But for the majority of the population, being uninsured means that potential healthcare bills – especially the big ones – will be paid by the rest of the population via higher healthcare costs and increased health insurance premiums. There’s no realistic way for hospitals to recoup costs from uninsured patients who have no ability to pay, especially if the bills are significant. And it might be well within the boundaries of the law to require people to not pass that risk off onto other people.[…]

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. […]

Grand Rounds And A Defense Of Tiered Health Insurance Plans

By

[…] Tiered health insurance plans seem sort of like HSA qualified high deductible plans, but with the added flexibility of being able to have a lower deductible if you’re willing to choose from a more limited network of providers. With a high deductible policy, you’re going to be paying a significant amount out of pocket if you have a major claim, regardless of where you go for treatment. You’ll usually pay even more if you go to an out-of-network provider, but even if you stay in-network, the deductibles on HSA-qualified plans are pretty steep. A tiered health insurance policy can be viewed as a high deductible policy if you opt for the high cost tier providers, or a low deductible/copay plan if you’re able to be flexible in terms of where you go for care. Yes, this might mean switching to a new PCP or opting for a clinic or hospital that isn’t quite as convenient. But as David points out, these plans usually have significantly lower premiums, and for some people, that will be a very worthwhile trade off.

Employer Funding Of Individual Health Insurance Varies By State

By

Over the past several months, I’ve written a few articles about the legality of employer reimbursement of individual health insurance premiums in Colorado. Our friend and fellow blogger Hank Stern (writing at InsureBlog) found the changes interesting, and noted that the laws surrounding employer reimbursement of premiums vary quite a bit from one state to another (he’s in OH).

Hank and I wrote a joint post about the topic, which he published last week on InsureBlog. Here’s Hank’s description of how the law works in OH (regular readers will note that it’s similar to how things used to be here in Colorado, before HRAs became a major issue, and of course before SB19 passed earlier this year). […]

Combining Patient Satisfaction With Clinical Outcomes And Cost Efficiency

By

[…] Particularly in the current era of spiraling healthcare costs, it’s a bit troubling to hear that hospitals are doing things like putting in extra elevators so that people don’t have to wait as long for an elevator… all for the sake of boosting their patient satisfaction rankings. Yes, it might increase patient satisfaction by a small margin, but somebody has to pay for it. Renovation projects like that add to the hospital’s overhead expenses, and that leads to increased charges for care at the hospital. Ultimately, health insurance carriers end up paying more for their insureds’ claims, and that translates directly to increased health insurance premiums […]

Comparing Wall Street And Healthcare

By

[…] Should hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical executives be earning millions of dollars while millions of Americans have no health insurance and no realistic access to healthcare? Should those executives earn their millions regardless of how their company has performed? Or regardless of the overall state of healthcare in this country? Should decision-making at healthcare companies (hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance carriers, device makers, etc.) be based more on the best interests of shareholders and executives, or on what is best for the health of Americans? Do healthcare companies need to be held to a different standard than other corporations, simply because of the importance of the product they provide? […]

More Flexibility With An Individual Health Insurance Plan

By

[…] For the average person who has had an individual policy for a decade and is late 50s-ish, keeping that individual policy (even though a group plan may become available) might be the ticket to being able to have some flexibility in terms of when to retire. The group plan is guaranteed issue – health conditions won’t be a barrier to getting coverage. But the group plan is also tied to the current employer, and the policy will only be available for a maximum of 18 months after you leave that job (via COBRA). […] Linda’s article is an excellent reminder about the importance of looking at the specifics of your own situation – including long term issues that might outweigh short-term benefits – rather than following conventional wisdom or doing what everyone else is doing.

Colorado’s Average 2012 Premium Increase Is The Smallest Since 2000

By

[…] I’m sure there will still be people who falsely claim that Colorado’s maternity mandate and federal reform are the reason for any increase. But when we place the 2012 increase in context with the increases we’ve seen over the past decade, it becomes harder to blame recent reform laws for the 2012 premium increases. I’m glad to see that after a year of having guaranteed issue coverage for children, no lifetime maximums, more comprehensive preventive care, and maternity benefits on all new and renewed individual policies, we are seeing the lowest average rate increase in over a decade.

Employer Reimbursement Of Premiums Causing Applicants To Be Declined

By

[…] I know that the law was written with good intentions, but we’re noticing that it’s the employees – the applicants who are trying to get individual health insurance policies – who get the short end of the stick. It’s the employees who end up getting their health insurance application declined. It’s the employees who end up having to pay for their own premiums in order to obtain coverage, even if they thought that they were going to be able to rely on some level of reimbursement from their employer.

Possible Solutions For Long Term Care Funding Problems

By

[…] As long as we’re looking at a fragmented public/private hodge podge of long term care funding that includes Medicaid, private long term care insurance, private assets, and help from family and friends, I think it’s important that we look for ways to make things as fair as possible and also keep Medicaid financially afloat. The CLASS Act got nixed from the ACA, but the problem of funding long term care isn’t going away, and is only going to grow as the baby boomer generation ages. John’s article is a good one to read if you’re interested in possible solutions.

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 […]”

Conflicting Data Regarding Medical Costs

By

[…] These numbers are much more in line with the rise in health insurance premiums that we’ve seen over the past few years. I have no explanation for why the data from the two sources is so dramatically different in terms of medical trend in 2010, but if the trend was really closer to 7.5% rather than 1.7%, the health insurance premium increases would be a lot easier to understand. […] In addition to the MLR rules, some states (including Colorado) have implemented strict review processes for rate hikes. The ACA now calls for insurers who propose a rate hike of 10% or more […]

Stuck In A Mini-Med

By

[…] So he applied for an individual policy with Anthem Blue Cross for his family, and was approved. But then when he tried to cancel his mini-med plan, his employer told him that he couldn’t cancel it until the open enrollment period next April. It would seem that trapping enrollees into a year-long contract with a mini-med plan is not in line with the spirit of the HHS guidelines that call for full disclosure regarding the waivers and directives to steer enrollees towards healthcare dot gov if they are interested in getting a policy that does comply with the ACA rules regarding annual policy limits. […]

Grand Rounds – Colorado Fall Colors Edition

By

Henry Stern of InsureBlog brings us an interview with the whistleblower who has brought a lawsuit against LabCorp for allegedly charging a lower price to United HealthCare than to Medicare. The post is particularly interesting because Hank adds his own thoughts after the interview, and he sees things a little differently than Andrew Baker (the whistleblower). Hank agrees that it does look like LabCorp lowered their fees for UHC […]

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.

Transferring Costs From Medicaid To Emergency Departments

By

[…] Denying arbitrary “non-emergent” ED claims for Medicaid patients doesn’t seem like a way to actually reduce ED overutilization. Instead, it seems like a way to cut Medicaid costs by increasing the number of unpaid claims that EDs have to write off each year. In order to cover their costs, hospitals will have to further increase prices for privately insured patients. That in turn causes health insurance premium hikes, which leads to calls for negotiations to artificially lower premiums. Where does it end?