On June 17, Dr. Karin Rhodes and her colleague Joanna Bisgaier of the University of Pennsylvania released a report on access to subspecialty doctors by children covered by Medicaid in Cook County, Illinois. The authors also published an article about the study underlying the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Rhodes undertook and was paid for the study pursuant to a contract with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the state’s Medicaid agency. The study was part of the department’s compliance with a 2005 consent decree in the case of Memisovski v. Maram, which followed a 2004 federal district court ruling that the state was not in compliance with Medicaid Act requirements that children receive recommended levels of preventive care and treatment of diagnosed conditions, and that they receive care at least to the same extent as children covered by other forms of insurance.
Following the consent decree in Memisovski, Illiniois has undertaken very significant reforms of the primary and preventive care system for children on Medicaid. It improved the rates paid for office visits to primary care doctors and dentists, and it held the processing time for those services to a reasonable level, even during the recession (when all other state bills were being delayed for many months). It launched a statewide “medical home” initiative designed to match children up with primary care doctors, which has had considerable success. Other strategies to improve primary care have been launched, and the overall effort continues.
The consent decree was less specific with respect to access to specialty care to diagnose conditions or especially to treat diagnosed conditions. It provided that the department undertake a study to examine the extent of access problems, and it left the remedies for any such problems to be determined after the study was completed. However, Illinois was not idle on this front. It enacted a round of rate increases for some pediatric specialists, and it included children in a disease management program for people with chronic illness.
The study released last Friday, however, shows that there is a very serious problem with access to specialty care for children covered by Medicaid and other public insurance, particularly as compared to children covered by other forms of insurance (mostly employer-based private insurance). Using a “secret shopper” methodology, the investigators posed as parents seeking care for a child, saying in one call that the child’s coverage was Medicaid and in the next call that the same child’s coverage was Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO (which dominates the market in Illinois). The Medicaid-covered children had very significant disadvantages for almost all sub-specialties in both the ability to get an appointment and in the waiting time for the appointment if it was granted. The one exception was psychiatric care, where there was a severe access problem regardless of type of insurance.
At the time of the original court order and consent decree, Illinois authorities were dealing with an inherited problem resulting from decades of underfunding and neglect of access issues in the state’s Medicaid program. They have been working to comply with the decree and improve the program, in spite of the grinding recession-driven budget crisis in the state. Representatives of the children in the case look forward to working in cooperation with state authorities to find and implement solutions to these newly documented problems with specialty access.
Meanwhile, the study has resulted in media coverage, and some commentators are attempting to use it to bolster current attempts by conservatives to cut spending on Medicaid or relieve states of the duty to comply with Medicaid’s federal rules guaranteeing children access to all needed care. Medicaid is not “broke”; it is underfunded. The underfunding causes it to fall short on its ability to deliver the kinds of quality health care that, over the long term, would save money by supporting healthier people. And Medicaid is not “broken”; it is falling short of its full potential. It provides plenty of essential health care to millions of children, working adults, people with disabilities and seniors. Cutting them off of Medicaid would hurt them immeasurably. And starving the program of funds would only exacerbate the problems with access and the efforts to expand the health care workforce needed to provide adequate care to all beneficiaries. Just because there are flaws in the program does not mean the program must end for millions of beneficiaries. If we scrapped every governmental program that has flaws that need fixing, where would the armed forces, roads, or schools be? Medicaid is essential, but it can and should improve, especially on this issue of access to needed care.
John Bouman
President, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
(Blog originally appeared here in the Shriver Brief)
An executive summary of the report can be found on the Illinois Health Matters website.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Thank You, Affordable Care Act! The Importance of the Act’s Provision Allowing Young Adults to Keep Family Insurance
Before last year, the number of young adults going without health insurance had reached crisis levels. In 2009, nearly 15 million young adults between the ages of 19 and 29 lacked health insurance, 4 million more than a decade earlier. After being covered as children, these young adults mostly lost coverage when they were kicked off their parents’ insurance plans after college or at age 20, 21 or 22, depending on the insurance company, or after they aged out of Medicaid or SCHIP programs. After losing that coverage, they could not afford to purchase their own insurance on the open market, being unemployed, in low-paying jobs without benefits or in school and without coverage.
Had it not been for the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) last year, the number of uninsured young adults would have continued to grow. As an unemployed, recent college graduate, I would most likely have been one of the newly uninsured in 2010 or had to pay for drastically more expensive coverage on my own.
Thankfully, the ACA’s provision mandating that insurers allow children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance has allowed me and thousands of young adults like me to remain covered. It scares me to think about what would have happened had I been forced to remain uninsured after I graduated. I have only had minor medical problems over the last year, but an accident or other serious malady would have been financially ruinous. Even if I had foregone the treatment of a small problem to save money, the problem could have developed into a much larger one.
However, other young adults with more serious health issues have benefited from this ACA provision more than me. My friends who have remained on their families’ insurance and who have chronic conditions, especially mental health conditions, are particularly benefiting from not having to discontinue their care. Even those who might have been able to buy more expensive coverage if forced are benefiting from remaining on their parents’ plans and having to pay less.
At a time when it is particularly risky to be young in America, this new coverage is particularly important. Because of the economic recession, unemployment amongst the young is increasing rapidly. According to economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, of college graduates with a bachelor’s degree not enrolled in further schooling, only 74% had a full-time job in December of 2010, down from 83% in 2007.
Unemployment is already crippling both financially and psychologically, especially for the young; I am thankful that a lack of health insurance is less of a worry for my generation than it was before the ACA. The ACA will even continue to make coverage more affordable for my generation in the future with the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of state health insurance exchanges. In my mind, expanding health insurance for young adults, especially allowing young adults to remain on parents’ plans, is one of the most significant achievements of the ACA and a demonstration of how health reform is already reshaping the healthcare landscape of America.
Emily Arntson
Intern, Health & Medicine Policy Research Group
Had it not been for the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) last year, the number of uninsured young adults would have continued to grow. As an unemployed, recent college graduate, I would most likely have been one of the newly uninsured in 2010 or had to pay for drastically more expensive coverage on my own.
Thankfully, the ACA’s provision mandating that insurers allow children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance has allowed me and thousands of young adults like me to remain covered. It scares me to think about what would have happened had I been forced to remain uninsured after I graduated. I have only had minor medical problems over the last year, but an accident or other serious malady would have been financially ruinous. Even if I had foregone the treatment of a small problem to save money, the problem could have developed into a much larger one.
However, other young adults with more serious health issues have benefited from this ACA provision more than me. My friends who have remained on their families’ insurance and who have chronic conditions, especially mental health conditions, are particularly benefiting from not having to discontinue their care. Even those who might have been able to buy more expensive coverage if forced are benefiting from remaining on their parents’ plans and having to pay less.
At a time when it is particularly risky to be young in America, this new coverage is particularly important. Because of the economic recession, unemployment amongst the young is increasing rapidly. According to economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, of college graduates with a bachelor’s degree not enrolled in further schooling, only 74% had a full-time job in December of 2010, down from 83% in 2007.
Unemployment is already crippling both financially and psychologically, especially for the young; I am thankful that a lack of health insurance is less of a worry for my generation than it was before the ACA. The ACA will even continue to make coverage more affordable for my generation in the future with the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of state health insurance exchanges. In my mind, expanding health insurance for young adults, especially allowing young adults to remain on parents’ plans, is one of the most significant achievements of the ACA and a demonstration of how health reform is already reshaping the healthcare landscape of America.
Emily Arntson
Intern, Health & Medicine Policy Research Group
Friday, 10 June 2011
Healthcare Tax Credits: A Boon To Small Business, Yet Spin-Doctors Oppose
Ever since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, opponents have thrown every attack they can think of against the wall, hoping something will stick. As attempts to repeal the law have failed, some of their arguments have become increasing laughable and, unfortunately, unconscionably reckless. For instance, these opponents now want you to believe that, in essence, small business owners do not want free money -- a mindboggling claim in these economic times.
Opponents, including groups that claim to represent small business, are taking aim at the small business tax credit in the ACA -- a provision allowing businesses with fewer than 25 employees that have average annual wages under $50,000 to get a tax credit of up to 35% of their health insurance costs beginning in tax year 2010. They say small businesses aren't using the credits because they don't provide enough of a benefit.
Poppycock.
I'm a small business owner. I founded ACI Interactive, an award-winning international e-commerce company that, after 10 years, I sold to the nation's leading retirement products company. My current company, Small Business Majority, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that focuses on advocating for small business-friendly policies at the national and state levels. And small business owners like myself have a special name for tax credits: free money.
Politicians and spin-doctors with an ax to grind about healthcare reform argue that my small business colleagues don't like free money. They say these tax credits, which are available until 2017, have no practical utility. That's like claiming that people wouldn't pick up $100 they find on the sidewalk because it's not enough to cover their rent that month. The argument is simply ridiculous, but even more astounding is that some people, likely far removed from the day-to-day reality of running a small business, seem to think it's a valid point.
Let me set the record straight. Small businesses like free money, even if it's available for only a few years or if it comes from a president they don't agree with. And they especially like it when times are tough.
There is a problem, however: small businesses haven't been taking advantage of the tax credits -- not because they're turning their noses up at free money, but because they don't know the credits exist. We polled more than 600 small business owners nationwide and found that 57% weren't aware the credits were available. After learning of the credits, one-third of small business owners who don't currently offer insurance to their employees said they'd be more likely to do so because of them.
The IRS sent postcards to the 4 million small businesses eligible for a credit on their 2010 taxes; according to a report we released last year with Families USA, nearly 84% of all small business in the country would be eligible for a credit. But small business people work 80-hour weeks so it's understandable that they might not know all the details of the healthcare law, especially when those shouting the loudest and purporting to have small businesses' best interests at heart are actively advocating against the credits. That's a disgrace and a disservice to our nation's entrepreneurs who bust their hump every day to make ends meet, pay their employees and turn a profit in their chosen endeavor.
It's clear partisans in Washington care more about scoring political points than helping small business owners. The fact that they're waging their ideological war at the expense of our nation's chief job creators is shameful. Small businesses will help dig us out of this recession. We should be doing everything in our power to help them, no matter what end of the political spectrum we fall on.
John Arensmeyer
Founder and CEO, Small Business Majority
(This post originally appeared on June 8, 2011 in the Huffington Post Small Business America)
Opponents, including groups that claim to represent small business, are taking aim at the small business tax credit in the ACA -- a provision allowing businesses with fewer than 25 employees that have average annual wages under $50,000 to get a tax credit of up to 35% of their health insurance costs beginning in tax year 2010. They say small businesses aren't using the credits because they don't provide enough of a benefit.
Poppycock.
I'm a small business owner. I founded ACI Interactive, an award-winning international e-commerce company that, after 10 years, I sold to the nation's leading retirement products company. My current company, Small Business Majority, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that focuses on advocating for small business-friendly policies at the national and state levels. And small business owners like myself have a special name for tax credits: free money.
Politicians and spin-doctors with an ax to grind about healthcare reform argue that my small business colleagues don't like free money. They say these tax credits, which are available until 2017, have no practical utility. That's like claiming that people wouldn't pick up $100 they find on the sidewalk because it's not enough to cover their rent that month. The argument is simply ridiculous, but even more astounding is that some people, likely far removed from the day-to-day reality of running a small business, seem to think it's a valid point.
Let me set the record straight. Small businesses like free money, even if it's available for only a few years or if it comes from a president they don't agree with. And they especially like it when times are tough.
There is a problem, however: small businesses haven't been taking advantage of the tax credits -- not because they're turning their noses up at free money, but because they don't know the credits exist. We polled more than 600 small business owners nationwide and found that 57% weren't aware the credits were available. After learning of the credits, one-third of small business owners who don't currently offer insurance to their employees said they'd be more likely to do so because of them.
The IRS sent postcards to the 4 million small businesses eligible for a credit on their 2010 taxes; according to a report we released last year with Families USA, nearly 84% of all small business in the country would be eligible for a credit. But small business people work 80-hour weeks so it's understandable that they might not know all the details of the healthcare law, especially when those shouting the loudest and purporting to have small businesses' best interests at heart are actively advocating against the credits. That's a disgrace and a disservice to our nation's entrepreneurs who bust their hump every day to make ends meet, pay their employees and turn a profit in their chosen endeavor.
It's clear partisans in Washington care more about scoring political points than helping small business owners. The fact that they're waging their ideological war at the expense of our nation's chief job creators is shameful. Small businesses will help dig us out of this recession. We should be doing everything in our power to help them, no matter what end of the political spectrum we fall on.
John Arensmeyer
Founder and CEO, Small Business Majority
(This post originally appeared on June 8, 2011 in the Huffington Post Small Business America)
Friday, 27 May 2011
Health Reform Bill Disappoints
As a bill backed by health reform advocates to establish a state insurance exchange languishes in committee, a version supported by the insurance industry is moving through the Illinois House — and one longtime advocate wonders why Illinois Democrats are carrying water for the insurers.
The House Insurance Committee approved a measure Wednesday creating a study commission to recommend legislation to establish an exchange. The measure, backed by House Speaker Michael Madigan, includes language previously approved by the House and adds a series of preemptions that advocates say will undercut the effectiveness of health reform.
With the original legislation, the fear was that the insurance industry would dominate the study group and consumer and small business voices would be marginalized.
The new version includes provisions restricting the size of small businesses that could participate, and would create separate pools for individuals and small businesses, limiting economies of scale and bargaining power.
Other provisions would bar the state from adding mandates for insurance coverage beyond what the government establishes, and continue taxpayer subsidies that were to be dropped – amounting to $30 million to $35 million a year – for the state’s high risk pool, where insurers can dump patients with chronic illnesses whom they don’t want to cover.
One upshot would likely be significant reductions in cost savings, said Jim Duffett of the Campaign for Better Health Care.
He thinks the insurers are trying to sabotage health reform. “The industry hopes that Obama loses next year and the Senate goes Republican and they can take health reform apart little by little.”
As for the legislative sponsors, he’s a bit nonplussed. “These are Democrats,” he said. “They’re supposed to care about consumers and consumer protection, not the interests of the insurance industry.”
CBHC is calling on legislators to defeat the current measure, now listed as SB 1555. The group backs another bill, SB 1729, which reflects a consensus negotiated earlier this year by insurance, consumer, business and health industry representatives meeting with the state’s Department of Insurance. It’s stalled in the Senate Assignments Committee.
“It’s unfortunate the legislature is ignoring six months of stakeholder meetings and expert testimony about how to come up with the best plan this year to set up a competitive system – and adding this bad preemptive policy language,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG.
“I hope that lawmakers pushing this legislation will give an equal opportunity for consumer advocates and small businesses to raise their issues,” he added.
Curtis Black
Newstips Editor, Community Media Workshop (originally posted here)
The House Insurance Committee approved a measure Wednesday creating a study commission to recommend legislation to establish an exchange. The measure, backed by House Speaker Michael Madigan, includes language previously approved by the House and adds a series of preemptions that advocates say will undercut the effectiveness of health reform.
With the original legislation, the fear was that the insurance industry would dominate the study group and consumer and small business voices would be marginalized.
The new version includes provisions restricting the size of small businesses that could participate, and would create separate pools for individuals and small businesses, limiting economies of scale and bargaining power.
Other provisions would bar the state from adding mandates for insurance coverage beyond what the government establishes, and continue taxpayer subsidies that were to be dropped – amounting to $30 million to $35 million a year – for the state’s high risk pool, where insurers can dump patients with chronic illnesses whom they don’t want to cover.
One upshot would likely be significant reductions in cost savings, said Jim Duffett of the Campaign for Better Health Care.
He thinks the insurers are trying to sabotage health reform. “The industry hopes that Obama loses next year and the Senate goes Republican and they can take health reform apart little by little.”
As for the legislative sponsors, he’s a bit nonplussed. “These are Democrats,” he said. “They’re supposed to care about consumers and consumer protection, not the interests of the insurance industry.”
CBHC is calling on legislators to defeat the current measure, now listed as SB 1555. The group backs another bill, SB 1729, which reflects a consensus negotiated earlier this year by insurance, consumer, business and health industry representatives meeting with the state’s Department of Insurance. It’s stalled in the Senate Assignments Committee.
“It’s unfortunate the legislature is ignoring six months of stakeholder meetings and expert testimony about how to come up with the best plan this year to set up a competitive system – and adding this bad preemptive policy language,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG.
“I hope that lawmakers pushing this legislation will give an equal opportunity for consumer advocates and small businesses to raise their issues,” he added.
Curtis Black
Newstips Editor, Community Media Workshop (originally posted here)
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
The CLASS Act: A New Option for Paying for Long-Term Services and Supports
Have you ever thought about how you would pay for services or supports to allow you to live independently if you acquired a disability or if a health condition you already have became worse and you needed assistance to complete basic tasks?
If you are like most people, you probably haven’t.
Most people don’t even want to think about the possibility that an illness, accident, or chronic health condition will happen to them, let alone plan for the possibility. Until now, the options have been limited even for those who have considered the possibility. Private long-term care insurance was the only option and for many the expense made it unaffordable. For others, a pre-existing illness or chronic health condition meant that long-term care insurance was not a viable option. Fortunately, there is a new program called the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, or CLASS Act, that will provide long-term services and supports to people who participate in the program.
The CLASS program is a voluntary, federally administered, consumer-financed long term care insurance plan. President Obama signed it into law as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on March 23, 2010. The CLASS plan provides those who participate through their employer with cash to help pay for needed assistance, if they become functionally limited, in a place they call home — from independent living in the community to a nursing facility, if they choose.
The CLASS Act is designed as an employer option to provide a long term care benefit for their current employees. Employers that choose to participate in the program will deduct CLASS premiums from the earnings of employees, who can also decide whether to participate. There is no employer contribution required. There will also be a way for people whose employers don’t participate and for the self-employed to pay premiums and participate in the program.
The basic design of the program is simple: people over 18 who are actively at work (which will be defined in regulation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS)) must pay into the program for at least 5 years to be eligible to receive a benefit. A person who needs assistance with activities of daily living and has paid premiums for 5 years can apply for and receive a cash benefit to pay for the services required to maintain independence in the setting of their choice.
Although the basic outline of the CLASS program was established in the ACA, it does require HHS to fill in many of the details -- such as the amount of premiums people will pay -- through regulation. There may be some changes to the program as implementation moves forward to 2013. We anticipate that HHS will make the following changes in order to provide a benefit that employers opt to offer and that is sustainable without tax dollars, as is required by the CLASS Act.
1) The premium will be adjusted so as to account for inflation.
2) The program will continue to be guaranteed issue available to people with underlying health conditions. However, the minimum earnings level will probably be raised in order to ensure that the program has beneficiaries who are consistently active workers.
3) The program will also close loopholes to guard against beneficiaries who intermittently pay into the program over the course of their working life.
4) The CLASS benefit design should be completed in 2012, with premium collection either beginning later next year or in early 2013.
5) The Secretary of HHS is evaluating ways to make the CLASS program sufficiently flexible to ensure that the diverse long-term services and supports needs of Americans are met.
Here are two helpful links you can use to follow the development of the CLASS Act benefit: LeadingAge and AdvanceClass. Also, here is HHS's FAQ on CLASS.
If you are like most people, you probably haven’t.
Most people don’t even want to think about the possibility that an illness, accident, or chronic health condition will happen to them, let alone plan for the possibility. Until now, the options have been limited even for those who have considered the possibility. Private long-term care insurance was the only option and for many the expense made it unaffordable. For others, a pre-existing illness or chronic health condition meant that long-term care insurance was not a viable option. Fortunately, there is a new program called the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, or CLASS Act, that will provide long-term services and supports to people who participate in the program.
The CLASS program is a voluntary, federally administered, consumer-financed long term care insurance plan. President Obama signed it into law as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on March 23, 2010. The CLASS plan provides those who participate through their employer with cash to help pay for needed assistance, if they become functionally limited, in a place they call home — from independent living in the community to a nursing facility, if they choose.
The CLASS Act is designed as an employer option to provide a long term care benefit for their current employees. Employers that choose to participate in the program will deduct CLASS premiums from the earnings of employees, who can also decide whether to participate. There is no employer contribution required. There will also be a way for people whose employers don’t participate and for the self-employed to pay premiums and participate in the program.
The basic design of the program is simple: people over 18 who are actively at work (which will be defined in regulation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS)) must pay into the program for at least 5 years to be eligible to receive a benefit. A person who needs assistance with activities of daily living and has paid premiums for 5 years can apply for and receive a cash benefit to pay for the services required to maintain independence in the setting of their choice.
Although the basic outline of the CLASS program was established in the ACA, it does require HHS to fill in many of the details -- such as the amount of premiums people will pay -- through regulation. There may be some changes to the program as implementation moves forward to 2013. We anticipate that HHS will make the following changes in order to provide a benefit that employers opt to offer and that is sustainable without tax dollars, as is required by the CLASS Act.
1) The premium will be adjusted so as to account for inflation.
2) The program will continue to be guaranteed issue available to people with underlying health conditions. However, the minimum earnings level will probably be raised in order to ensure that the program has beneficiaries who are consistently active workers.
3) The program will also close loopholes to guard against beneficiaries who intermittently pay into the program over the course of their working life.
4) The CLASS benefit design should be completed in 2012, with premium collection either beginning later next year or in early 2013.
5) The Secretary of HHS is evaluating ways to make the CLASS program sufficiently flexible to ensure that the diverse long-term services and supports needs of Americans are met.
Here are two helpful links you can use to follow the development of the CLASS Act benefit: LeadingAge and AdvanceClass. Also, here is HHS's FAQ on CLASS.
Lisa Ekman, JD, MSW
Senior Policy Advisor
Monday, 23 May 2011
Medicare Improving Fast
There is an intense debate over Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R. WI) proposal to scrap Medicare and turn it into a voucher program shifting costs to seniors, a debate that became even more intense when it was passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The Senate has not passed it, and the President has registered his opposition. The American people are also firmly opposed.
But that debate has taken news focus away from the substantial improvements to the Medicare program that have been accomplished in just the last year under the Affordable Care Act, with more improvements soon to come. Costs are lower and care is better for seniors all over the country.
Here is what happened in 2010 and is about to happen in 2011 in Medicare under the Affordable Care Act. The numbers apply to Illinois, but the same impact is happening everywhere in America.
John Bouman
President, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law (originally posted in the Shriver Brief)
But that debate has taken news focus away from the substantial improvements to the Medicare program that have been accomplished in just the last year under the Affordable Care Act, with more improvements soon to come. Costs are lower and care is better for seniors all over the country.
Here is what happened in 2010 and is about to happen in 2011 in Medicare under the Affordable Care Act. The numbers apply to Illinois, but the same impact is happening everywhere in America.
- Prescription drugs are more affordable. In 2010, 152,170 Illinois residents hit the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” and received at $250 rebate check to defray their costs. Across the state, this came to $38 million in savings for seniors. In 2011, everyone in Illinois who hits the donut hole will receive a 50% discount on their brand name and generic prescription drugs. As of March, Illinois Medicare beneficiaries who had triggered into this benefit were getting about $800 a month in savings.
- Preventive services are free. In 2010, when this section of the new law had not yet taken effect, Medicare charged co-pays for preventive services like mammograms and other cancer screenings. In 2011 all of the 1.9 million Medicare beneficiaries in Illinois now get all recommended preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs.
- The annual checkup is free. In 2010, when this section of the new law had not yet taken effect, Medicare charged a co-payment for the annual checkup. Starting in 2011, Medicare beneficiaries can go to an annual wellness visit with no out-of-pocket cost. As of April 20, 17,508 Illinoisans have had a free wellness visit.
- Premiums are lower. Under the new law, in 2010 Medicare Part B premiums were nearly $8 less per month than projected by the Medicare trustees. In 2011, the premiums are almost $5 less per month than projected by the Medicare trustees. The lower premium translates to $107 million in savings for Illinois Medicare beneficiaries in 2011.
- Medicare Advantage. In 2010 and 2011 all beneficiaries still retain the option of joining a Medicare Advantage plan if they so desire.
John Bouman
President, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law (originally posted in the Shriver Brief)
Thursday, 19 May 2011
States Take Steps to Improve Oversight and Consumer Engagement
In the past few months, several states have taken dramatic steps to strengthen their rate review authority, protect consumers, and call out insurers on excessive rate increases. For example, earlier this year, California health insurers announced planned rate increases that would have driven premium costs up as much as 87 percent for some individuals. But in the face of increasing insurer profits, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones elicited promises from California’s major health insurers that they would decrease and delay implementing proposed rate increases until the state had a chance to evaluate the accuracy of the insurers’ filing. This week, Consumer Watchdog released a report indicating state reviews of insurer rate increases found erroneous math and unsupported actuarial assumptions in rate filings submitted by health insurers. California legislators are moving legislation to give the insurance commissioner explicit authority to disapprove of or reduce proposed premium increases through the state Assembly.
And in New Mexico, the state’s Republican Governor recently signed into law a bill that enhances the state’s rate review authority. The new law includes strong provisions encouraging public participation by establishing a thirty day public comment period on proposed rate increases and requiring insurers to notify policyholders of any possible increase in their premium rate before the increase can be implemented. The statute further gives policyholders the right to request a public hearing on rate increases that the Insurance Superintendent has approved.
Affordable Care Act Mandates Rate Review
The Affordable Care Act requires an annual review of unreasonable health insurance premium increases. Federal regulations, soon to be finalized, outline the process through which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), together with state regulators, will review and evaluate health insurance premium rate increases.
While several states currently have review processes requiring a comprehensive evaluation of proposed rate increases before insurers may charge consumers and businesses more for their premiums, other states are using the new federal rate review requirement to expand consumer protections. In February, HHS announced $200 million worth of federal grant money available to states to help them strengthen their rate review processes and states will finalize their application for this money this summer.
Together with their Insurance Departments, and independently, state consumer health advocates are making tremendous progress toward protecting consumers from unreasonably high insurance premium increase. At the end of this blog post you will find new resources Community Catalyst has developed to assist states in advocating for stronger rate review laws.
State Advocates are Helping to Improve Rate Review Processes
State consumer health advocates all over the country are taking the lead to guide their states toward revising and implementing stronger rate review laws. For example, in Pennsylvania, the PA Health Access Network is developing an online petition that they intend to use to encourage their insurance commissioner to hold public hearings on proposed rate increases, giving consumers and policyholders the opportunity to provide input on rate increases.
Advocates with Illinois’ Campaign for Better Health Care are supporting legislation that would give their insurance commissioner authority to disapprove or reduce proposed premium rate increases. Recent data released by the Illinois Department of Insurance shows that while insurance premium rates have increased 181 percent since 2005 for individuals and families in Illinois, the top five insurers brought in more than $28 billion in profits in 2010 alone.
And in Ohio, advocates at UHCAN Ohio are in the research phase of their campaign to improve the state’s rate review process, enhance transparency and consumer involvement as a means to protect individuals, families, and small businesses from rising health insurance costs. These advocates are in communication with officials at the Ohio Department of Insurance to better understand the current rate review process and gather data about increasing premium rates.
While we provide three examples here of state advocates working to strengthen their states’ rate review laws and two states where reform is on the horizon, many other states are progressing toward stronger, consumer protective rate review processes or currently have robust laws on the books.
Tools for States to Engage in Rate Review Reform
Because most states will continue to oversee health insurance premium rate increases in their markets, Community Catalyst has designed a toolkit to assist state advocates in evaluating their state’s current rate review process and to develop advocacy resources supporting stronger rate review laws. Use the general fact sheet to explain rate review to policymakers and community organizers. The state-specific template is a guide to asking the right questions and gathering the right information and data to demonstrate the critical need for enhanced rate review authority in your state.
Sarah Blumenthal
Community Catalyst (originally posted on Health Policy Hub)
And in New Mexico, the state’s Republican Governor recently signed into law a bill that enhances the state’s rate review authority. The new law includes strong provisions encouraging public participation by establishing a thirty day public comment period on proposed rate increases and requiring insurers to notify policyholders of any possible increase in their premium rate before the increase can be implemented. The statute further gives policyholders the right to request a public hearing on rate increases that the Insurance Superintendent has approved.
Affordable Care Act Mandates Rate Review
The Affordable Care Act requires an annual review of unreasonable health insurance premium increases. Federal regulations, soon to be finalized, outline the process through which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), together with state regulators, will review and evaluate health insurance premium rate increases.
While several states currently have review processes requiring a comprehensive evaluation of proposed rate increases before insurers may charge consumers and businesses more for their premiums, other states are using the new federal rate review requirement to expand consumer protections. In February, HHS announced $200 million worth of federal grant money available to states to help them strengthen their rate review processes and states will finalize their application for this money this summer.
Together with their Insurance Departments, and independently, state consumer health advocates are making tremendous progress toward protecting consumers from unreasonably high insurance premium increase. At the end of this blog post you will find new resources Community Catalyst has developed to assist states in advocating for stronger rate review laws.
State Advocates are Helping to Improve Rate Review Processes
State consumer health advocates all over the country are taking the lead to guide their states toward revising and implementing stronger rate review laws. For example, in Pennsylvania, the PA Health Access Network is developing an online petition that they intend to use to encourage their insurance commissioner to hold public hearings on proposed rate increases, giving consumers and policyholders the opportunity to provide input on rate increases.
Advocates with Illinois’ Campaign for Better Health Care are supporting legislation that would give their insurance commissioner authority to disapprove or reduce proposed premium rate increases. Recent data released by the Illinois Department of Insurance shows that while insurance premium rates have increased 181 percent since 2005 for individuals and families in Illinois, the top five insurers brought in more than $28 billion in profits in 2010 alone.
And in Ohio, advocates at UHCAN Ohio are in the research phase of their campaign to improve the state’s rate review process, enhance transparency and consumer involvement as a means to protect individuals, families, and small businesses from rising health insurance costs. These advocates are in communication with officials at the Ohio Department of Insurance to better understand the current rate review process and gather data about increasing premium rates.
While we provide three examples here of state advocates working to strengthen their states’ rate review laws and two states where reform is on the horizon, many other states are progressing toward stronger, consumer protective rate review processes or currently have robust laws on the books.
Tools for States to Engage in Rate Review Reform
Because most states will continue to oversee health insurance premium rate increases in their markets, Community Catalyst has designed a toolkit to assist state advocates in evaluating their state’s current rate review process and to develop advocacy resources supporting stronger rate review laws. Use the general fact sheet to explain rate review to policymakers and community organizers. The state-specific template is a guide to asking the right questions and gathering the right information and data to demonstrate the critical need for enhanced rate review authority in your state.
Sarah Blumenthal
Community Catalyst (originally posted on Health Policy Hub)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)