Three states had ballot initiatives this week that attempted to outlaw the mandate in the PPACA that requires everyone to have health insurance starting in 2014. Colorado was the only state that did not approve the measure. Voters in Colorado defeated Amendment 63, which would have made it illegal for the state of Colorado to force people to buy health insurance. Even if it had been approved by voters, it would have been a symbolic measure, as the mandate requiring all of us to have health insurance coverage as of 2014 is a federal law, and thus supersedes state laws. […]
Health Insurance Reform
How The Colorado Division Of Insurance Reviews Rate Filings
[…] The Division of Insurance has recently released an extensive FAQ page detailing how the review process works. The page includes data about health insurance premiums in Colorado, how they compare with the rest of the country, and specifics about how the Division of Insurance reviews rate increase proposals from carriers. […]
Funding Health Care Reform
For months now, one of the main arguments against the PPACA is that it doesn’t address health care costs or provide a means to pay for the reforms that it includes. Opponents of the reform law have used the money argument to drum up support for their cause, and – along with opposition to the individual mandate requiring everyone to have health insurance starting in 2014 – it remains one of the first things that people will mention when asked why they oppose the PPACA. […]
High Risk Pool Eligibility
[…] There is another significant difference between Cover Colorado and GettingUsCovered, in terms of eligibility. Both plans allow eligibility for applicants who have one of several specific medical conditions, and both plans accept applicants who have either been declined by a private insurance company or offered coverage with a pre-existing condition exclusion. But while Cover Colorado also allows people to enroll if they have been offered a private policy with a rate that is higher than a comparable Cover Colorado plan, GettingUsCovered does not allow this option. […]
Some Mini-Med Policies Are Better Than Others
This week’s Grand Rounds included an article by David Williams about mini-med plans that I thought was worth sharing. David explains that although he’s not a fan of mini-med policies, sometimes they are indeed better than nothing. Mini-med policies come in all shapes and sizes, and David’s article describes policies with $25,000 or $50,000 benefit maximums… a far cry from the $2,000 maximum policies that I wrote about earlier this month. […]
NAIC Considering Transitional Period For New MLR Requirements
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners is meeting this week to figure out the specifics of how the new medical loss ratio (MLR) rules should be implemented, and they’ll be voting on the issue tomorrow. Basically, health reform law calls for health insurance carriers to be spending 80 – 85% of premium dollars on medical care as of January 1, 2011. But the insurance industry would prefer to see the increased MLRs phased in gradually. They say that they can meet the new MLR requirements over the next few years, but that trying to do so all at once by the first of the year will only serve to drive some carriers out of business entirely. […]
Baseless Fear Mongering Hurts The Healthcare Reform Debate
[…] There’s nothing wrong with being opposed to all or part of the health care reform law. However, it’s not factual to call the PPACA “socialism”. It’s does a disservice to voters to say that the reform law contains “death panels”. It’s not factual to say that patients will have to go to a bureaucrat before seeing his or her doctor. Spreading this sort of misinformation is truly harmful to the debate. Rather than discussing the actual facts of the law and searching for sensible solutions and compromises, fear-mongering sound bites with no basis in reality only serve to get people riled up.
Maternity Coverage In The Individual Health Insurance Market
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a memorandum this week detailing the practices of the four largest private health insurance carriers (Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint) regarding maternity coverage on individual policies. For anyone who is familiar with the individual health insurance market, the details of the memo will come as no surprise. But since the majority of Americans are covered by group health insurance plans that cover maternity just like any other claim, the details of how maternity coverage works in the individual market may be eye-opening for a lot of people. […]
A Compromise That Makes Sense For Child-Only Policies
[…] Even with guaranteed issue open enrollment periods for child only policies, insurers would definitely be taking on an increased risk compared with what they had when all individual policies were medically underwritten. If insurers could be allowed to continue to accept healthy kids (who present less of a financial risk to the carriers) throughout the year, this would help to offset the losses that they would incur by insuring the unhealthy kids who enroll during the open enrollment period. Regardless of whether that’s in line with the “language and intent” of the PPACA, it makes sense in the real world.
Mini-Med Plans Don’t Really Help Workers
[…] HHS wants to protect employees from losing their mini-med plans, and has issued the waivers in order to help those employees keep their policies in place. But I wonder if that’s actually the best thing for the workers involved? Some of the policies in question might be better plans that have annual limits nearly as high as the minimum required by the PPACA. But is it really beneficial to workers if we help them keep policies with $2000 annual caps?
The Perils Of Not Having An Individual Mandate
[…] Are we comfortable with allowing emergency services providers to turn away patients who are uninsured and cannot pay upfront for their care? If we are not, then the rest of us are paying for their care (indirectly, through higher health insurance premiums). And if we are, we find ourselves right back in the debate about whether it’s ok for firefighters to watch a house burn to the ground because the homeowner didn’t pay his fire protection fee. It seems that we all like having choices until we make the wrong choice one day.
Opposing Viewpoints On Amendment 63 In Colorado
Voters in Colorado will decide the fate of Amendment 63 next month, and the issue is definitely one of the more divisive ones on our ballot this year. The Denver Post ran a couple of editorials over the weekend that address both sides of the debate, and they’re both worth reading. Bob Semro, a policy analyst with the Bell Policy Center, explains why Amendment 63 is a bad idea, while Jon Caldera and Linda Gorman, both with the Independence Institute, detail the virtues of Amendment 63. […]
Regulators And Insurers Still Working On Child-Only Coverage Issue
[…] So far, none of the carriers who had backed out of the child-only market have commented on whether the open enrollment periods might make them change their minds, but AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans) has said that they are continuing to work with regulators to try to find solutions that would make the child-only market feasible for insurers in the future.
Very Few Real Estate Transactions Will Be Impacted By New Medicare Tax
[…] One of the rumors that has been circulating via email lately proclaims that the PPACA includes a 3.8% tax on all real estate transactions. This is simply not true. […] Most houses do not sell for profits of anywhere near the capital gains threshold. And most families don’t qualify as high income households. So most real estate transactions will not be impacted in any way by the new Medicare tax.
CBS Story Leaves Out Important Options For Kids
[…] As I said, I have no knowledge of this particular family’s situation. But child-only policies have always been rare, and there is usually another option for those children to obtain coverage. They can be covered as a dependent on a parent’s policy (which can now include policies in the individual market), by Cover Colorado, or possibly by Medicaid or CHP+. Even situations like Thomas Wilkes, who was maxing out the lifetime caps, now has a solution because Healthcare Reform has removed lifetime maximums. There is a long way to go, and this situation is frustrating. But if you ever hear anybody say that they have no options to get their child covered in Colorado, please pass this information along. I hope that Mr. Serrano signs Maria up for some health insurance today, whether it is on a family policy with him, Cover Colorado, or CHP+. We should not be hearing anymore stories about uninsured children simply because their parents aren’t aware of the options available.
Guaranteed Issue Policies For Children Happened Too Quickly
[…] Regardless of the practicalities involved, there’s no doubt that the headlines about insurers ceasing to issue child-only policies is generating some ill will and bad PR for insurance carriers. Either lawmakers knew that would happen, or else they put very little thought into considering the details of how insurers would go about making children’s coverage guaranteed issue a mere six months after the bill was signed into law, and just added the provision as a feel-good part of the bill.
Money For Health Insurance Premium Increase Reviews
[…] Colorado will get $1 million to use for more extensive review of future rate increases, and the Division of Insurance has proposed hiring more analysts and actuaries to examine the data that is filed each year by the insurance carriers. The rate proposals will get more scrutiny, which is a good protective measure for consumers. But insureds could still see hefty rate increases thanks to the ever-increasing cost of health care. […]
Amendment 63 On The Ballot In Colorado
Throughout this year, the Independence Institute has been working to get a measure on the ballot in Colorado to block the health care reform legislation that would require everyone to have health insurance starting in 2014. Yesterday, the Colorado Secretary of State confirmed that the amendment supporters have gathered enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, so it will be up for a vote in November. […]
Deciphering Medical Loss Ratio Rules
Jaan Sidorov of the Disease Management Care Blog has started deciphering the specifics of the Medical Loss Ratio requirements, and it looks like the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is taking a rather inclusive view of medicine in their interpretation of the law. Ever since the MLR minimums were laid out in the PPACA, there has been much debate over what would be considered administrative costs. It’s heartening to see the NAIC giving so much leeway in terms of what will be considered medical expenses. […]
Why Medicare For All Might Not Be So Great
[…] most non-elderly Americans still get their health insurance through their employers. And in general, as long as people are somewhat satisfied with the status quo, most of us tend to be a bit resistant to change. Obviously, people who are currently uninsured are likely to support sweeping changes in the health care system. But most Americans do have health insurance, and those who have generous policies – that are at least partially funded by their employers – might find themselves with less coverage if we moved to a single payer plan.
Grandfathered Plans Will Be Rare By 2014
Several provisions in the new health care reform law will begin to take effect next month. More changes will take place over the next three years, leading up the biggest changes in 2014, when all individual policies will have to be guaranteed issue, and everyone will be required to have health insurance.
The only way an insurance policy will be able to avoid some of the changes implemented by the new law is to retain grandfathered status, basically by keeping the policy mostly unchanged from the way it was on March 23, 2010, when the law was passed. But it turns out that the benefits […]
Not Many Details Yet On Maternity Coverage In Colorado
[…] We still have several months left in 2009 for regulators and insurance companies to work out the details, and I’m sure we’ll know more by the end of the year. When you combine this with the new Colorado law banning gender rating on health insurance policies, and the myriad of reforms coming from the federal government, I’d say that health insurance regulators in Denver are going to have their hands full for a while.
Avoiding Adverse Selection
[…] Hopefully the fact that insurers can designate an open enrollment period for children to be accepted on a guaranteed issue basis will make it more likely that parents will keep their children continuously insured. The spirit of the law regarding coverage for children is good: It isn’t right that sick kids should be unable to get health insurance at any price. But with no requirement that all kids be insured, and without a designated open enrollment period, the new law would absolutely have encouraged adverse selection.
Eligible Does Not Mean Enrolled
[…] With budget cuts all over the county, now is probably not a good time for state agencies to add staff who focus on helping parents enroll their kids in public health insurance programs. But existing community based organizations could be a great resource for parents with uninsured kids. And this might also be an excellent position to fill with volunteers who are willing to work with parents in their own communities. […]
Open Enrollment Period For Children
[…] The Obama Administration had been clear in saying that health insurance companies would have to accept all children under age 19, without regard for pre-existing conditions. But last week that position was clarified with a bit of added leeway for insurers, allowing them to set open enrollment periods during which children can have access to health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. […]