[…] Although a lot of Americans have a problem with the idea of the government telling them they have to purchase a product like health insurance (and of course, there is concern that such a precedent could pave the way for other mandates that we haven’t thought of yet), the problem of providing unreimbursed healthcare for uninsured patients is a very real issue for providers. And unfortunately, the end result is that hospital overhead is higher (to cover the unreimbursed care) and those higher charges end up being passed on to health insurance carriers. Which means that health insurance premiums increase to cover the higher claims expenses. There is no “free” care. For all but the most wealthy among us, “self-insuring” really just means relying on luck. And luck doesn’t usually hold out forever.
Individual/Family Health
Colorado AG Files Lawsuit Against Discount And Mini-Med Health Plan
We’ve written several articles over the years about the importance of skepticism when an insurance product just seems too good to be true (ie, no medical underwriting and premiums that are a fraction of the cost of most policies on the market). Often, those policies are actually discount plans or mini-med coverage that won’t provide much of anything in terms of coverage when it’s actually needed.
The Colorado Division of Insurance has a good page with warnings and advice to consumers who are considering medical discount plans. These plans are generally legal, but buyers definitely need to understand what they’re getting into before they sign up – especially if they’re dropping a standard health insurance policy to switch to a discount or mini-med plan.
With shady medical benefits companies, the focus tends to be on consumers getting ripped off. In an interesting twist, the Colorado Attorney General has filed suit against a Highlands Ranch, Colorado LLC, Consolidated Medical Services, but the lawsuit isn’t regarding their product. It pertains to the way in which they recruit – and allegedly scam – their affiliate marketers. […]
Lack Of Public Understanding About Healthcare Reform Law
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. […]
1,000th Post
This is our 1000th post. We started this blog in the fall of 2006. At the time, 100 posts seemed like a lot. And here we are at a thousand. We decided that needed something a little different from the fascinating commentary we usually provide, so here’s a picture of our dog, Lukky, and our cat, Larry. They’re best buddies, and on the few occasions that Lukky has had to wear the cone of shame, Larry has always been right there keeping her company. […]
The Subjective Nature Of The Affordability Of Health Insurance
[…] Health insurance is definitely not cheap. For those who qualify for programs like Medicaid and CHP+, the subsidized or free coverage is likely a lifesaver. But what about middle class families who don’t qualify for public health insurance, but for whom health insurance premiums are a budget buster? Why is health insurance more of a priority for one family than for another (to the point that one family will cut their budget in other areas, like clothing and vacations and vehicles, in order to keep paying for their health insurance)? Is it all about personal experience? If you’ve had a medical scare or have a loved one who has had significant medical bills (especially at a young age, or for an out-of-the-blue medical condition), are you more likely to rearrange your priorities to make health insurance affordable, regardless of your income? If you’ve always been healthy, are you more likely to see health insurance as a money-pit and opt to spend your money elsewhere?
We know that the percentage of our income that is being spent on healthcare has climbed significantly over the past decade. For a lot of people, it’s becoming a much more significant monthly expense than it used to be. But whether or not it’s “affordable” really depends on the person being asked.
Would Premiums Without A Mandate Really Only Be 2.4% Higher Than With A Mandate?
[…] Keep in mind that all of those prices are based on the fact that the individual policies are medically underwritten (which means that the rates can be increased during underwriting or the application can be denied based on medical history), while the group plans are guaranteed issue and the rates cannot vary based on the group’s health status. There’s a huge range of options available, both in the individual and small group markets. But the premiums in the small group market for our family of four (parents in their 30s with two young children) would be roughly double what they are in the individual market.
Although I realize that the RAND study is important and useful, I wonder why the real-life scenario of individual versus small group premiums is so different. And although the ACA does put a cap on how much greater premiums can be for older people versus younger people, it doesn’t stipulate what the base premiums have to be for the younger people. Premiums have to follow the MLR rules (with insurers spending at least 80 – 85% of premiums on medical expenses), but they will reflect claims expenses pretty closely. […]
Will The Colorado Health Benefits Exchange Be Integrated With Public Assistance Programs?
[…] Last summer, lawmakers in Colorado were concerned that federal requirements that visitors to the exchanges be screened for eligibility for Medicaid, CHIP and federal health insurance subsidies would increase enrollment in Colorado’s safety-net health insurance programs. Given the budget woes that those programs have had, the lawmakers were hesitant to make the exchange a “one stop shop” for public assistance programs. But much has also been said about the importance of integrating the exchanges with public benefits programs in order to close the gaps that people can fall into if their incomes fluctuate between eligibility for federal health insurance subsidies and eligibility for Medicaid. This proposal calls for the exchange and the public benefits programs to be interoperable as of January 1, 2014 and integrated as of December 15, 2015. For the sake of simplicity and protecting the needs of low-income families, it seems that the more seamless we can make the health insurance enrollment process (particularly for those who go back and forth between Medicaid and private health insurance), the better.
It will be interesting to see how the separate/interoperable/integrated scenarios for the health benefits exchange and Colorado’s public assistance programs play out over the next couple years as the exchange is created and implemented.
Preauthorizations And Legal-eze: Why Health Insurers Have To Use Them
[…] 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
[…] 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
[…] 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.
A Look At Canadian And US “Mini-Med” Health And Dental Insurance
[…] Glenn notes that although most people there have provincial health insurance policies, they often get additional coverage from their employers for things like prescriptions and dental care. And he points out that all too often, people think that they’re “covered” just because they have a health insurance card in their hands – even though the coverage might have very low annual limits. Of course that only becomes a problem when you have a catastrophic claim, which is of course when you need your health insurance the most.
Although the ACA has nixxed lifetime benefit maximums on health insurance policies here in the US, significantly increased annual maximum thresholds, and designated several categories of “essential benefits” that must be covered at specified levels, HHS has granted plenty of waivers for employers who are offering “mini-med” policies to their workers. These policies are far from being a safety net in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury, and often only cover a few thousand dollars in benefits per year. They remind me a lot of the type of policies Glenn is describing. […]
A Visual Of Our Healthcare Spending
[…] This RAND Corporation infographic paints a pretty clear picture of how healthcare costs have increased over the past decade (specifically, the data refers to 1999 – 2009). Healthcare spending nearly doubled in that time frame, from $1.3 trillion to $2.5 trillion, but the second graphic shows how our complicated method of paying for healthcare makes it harder for the average family to see how their own healthcare costs have been impacted. The last graphic in the series shows what the average family could have done with the extra $2880 they would have had in 2009 if healthcare costs had grown during the 2000’s at the same rate they did in the 1990’s (GDP + 1%). Given how cash-strapped a lot of families have been for the past few years, I’m sure an extra three grand could have made a big difference. […]
Health Wonk Review – Campaign 2012 Edition
All of the 
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, particularly
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
[…] 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
[…] 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.[…]
Claims Expenses In New Colorado High Risk Pool Are Double The National Average
[…] I realize that premiums cover a very small portion of the claims expenses incurred by the high risk pools, so perhaps it’s a better move from a financial standpoint to limit enrollment in the high risk pool. But expanding eligibility and increasing enrollment numbers have been discussed numerous times since the pools started operating in 2010. I haven’t seen any specific details explaining why Colorado’s per-member claims expenses are so much higher than they are in other states with similar programs. It could be that it’s random, but if that’s the case we should expect to see Colorado’s numbers even out with other states as time goes by. If we don’t, we can assume that there’s something specific to Colorado that is causing the difference – either healthcare is far more expensive here, or our federally funded high risk pool is enrolling applicants who are – on average – far sicker than applicants in other states. Once the program has had another year of claims data, it will be interesting to revisit the numbers and see whether Colorado is still spending significantly more than other states, or whether the numbers have started to equalize.
Cavalcade Of Risk In Its Sixth Year And Going Strong
Political Calculations just hosted their fifth Cavalcade of Risk this week, with their trademark rating system for articles. Be sure to check it out. IronMan pointed out that blog carnivals have largely been surpassed by social media platforms when it comes to sharing interesting posts and getting exposure for new blogs – and he gives… Read more about Cavalcade Of Risk In Its Sixth Year And Going Strong
Colorado Gets $26.1 Million Award For Insuring More Children
For the second year in a row, Colorado has received a significant grant from the federal government (funded under the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act) to help fund the state’s Medicaid system. A year ago, Colorado received $13.7 million. Last week, Colorado got $26.1 million – the third highest amount awarded to any of the states that qualified for the performance bonuses this time around. Colorado was one of the states with an enrollment increase of more than 10%, which qualified for a higher “Tier 2” bonus award. The program awarded a total of over $296 million at the end of 2011, and it was spread across 23 states, as opposed to only 15 that qualified a year earlier.
In order to qualify for a bonus, a state has to implement at least five of the eight provisions that have been proven to increase enrollment and retention numbers for Medicaid and CHIP, and the state has to also prove that they have had a significant increase in the number of children enrolled in Medicaid during the year.
[…]
Prescreen Simplifies CoverColorado Eligibility Process
[…] If the health insurance carrier issues a denial letter based on the prescreen, that denial letter can be used as proof of eligibility for CoverColorado. The applicant can then proceed with an application for CoverColorado and include the denial letter.
The prescreen is intended to replace the need for an applicant (with one or more of those 21 medical conditions) to submit a complete application to a private carrier in order to receive a letter of decline and thus be eligible for CoverColorado. The prescreen is definitely shorter and easier to complete than a full application.
It should be noted however that all 21 of the medical conditions listed on the prescreen questionnaire are also included on the list of medical conditions that automatically make an applicant eligible for CoverColorado. This list of conditions has long been an option for CoverColorado eligibility, and it is more comprehensive than the new prescreen list (it includes the 21 conditions on the prescreen as well as 13 others). […]
Interesting Reading In The HHS Bulletin On Essential Health Benefits
[…] 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
[…] 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. […]
Colorado Child-Only Open Enrollment Details For January 2012
The next open enrollment for child-only policies is almost here, so I thought it might be helpful to provide some specific details in terms of what policies are available and what parents should expect when submitting child-only applications next month.
The first open enrollment window in 2012 will be the month of January. Applications for child-only policies have to be submitted between January 1 and January 31. Application not submitted by the end of January will have to wait and re-submit in July, which is the second open-enrollment period of the year. For most carriers, each child in a family will have to have a separate application.
All eligible child-only applications submitted during the open enrollment period are guaranteed issue, so the child cannot be refused coverage. However, the applications are still medically underwritten and the rate can be increased by up to 200% based on the child’s medical history (so if the standard price is $100, the policy could actually be assigned a rate of $300, which is equal to a 200% rate increase).
Colorado Senate Bill 128 requires all Colorado health insurance carriers that offer coverage for adults to also offer child-only plans during the two annual open enrollment windows. But the bill does not require carriers to provide guaranteed issue coverage for children who are eligible for health insurance from another source (other than a high risk pool like CoverColorado or GettingUSCovered – see the bottom of page 4).
Most Colorado carriers have selected one or two plan designs that will be available for child-only applications next month. To give you an idea of what is available in Colorado for child-only coverage, we’re providing information here regarding child-only options from six of the top individual health insurance carriers in the state. […]
Access To A Mini-Med Group Plan Does Not Prevent CoverColorado Enrollment
[…] The person I spoke with at CoverColorado checked with a supervisor and then told me that mini-meds are an exception to CoverColorado’s rule banning eligibility for people who have access to group health insurance. In order to qualify, the applicant has to provide the usual proof of eligibility along with proof that their employer’s group health plan is a mini-med. This can be the declarations page from the policy or marketing materials for the plan (which now have to include language indicating that the plan has been granted a waiver by HHS and does not meet the minimum benefit requirements defined by the PPACA).
Hopefully this will clarify things for others in a similar situation. Normally, access to a group health insurance policy (even if it’s one you don’t like or your doctor isn’t on the network, etc.) makes a person ineligible for CoverColorado. But if that group plan happens to be a mini-med and you also meet the other eligibility criteria for CoverColorado, you can submit an application to CoverColorado.
CoverColorado Assessment For 2012
[…] As the cost of healthcare continues to rise, CoverColorado – just like every other insurer – needs more and more money to cover the cost of claims. Their website shows the fees that have been assessed over the past few years, and the increased fee that will go into effect next month for 2012.
Because the CoverColorado assessment is collected by health insurance carriers and passed on to CoverColorado, the fee is added to each policy’s premium every month. The end result is that we all pay a few dollars more per month than the actual cost of our policy. This can be confusing, especially if people are new to individual health insurance and haven’t had experience with paying their own health insurance premiums in the past. The amount that is going to be drafted from your bank account or billed to you will be a few dollars higher than your stated premiums because it includes the CoverColorado assessment. […]
Will Large Groups Encourage Sick Employees To Seek Coverage In The Exchanges?
[…] 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.