Will Healthcare.gov Get A California Makeover?

By Pauline Bartolone
Kaiser Health News, February 9, 2016

Experts say the California exchange uses more of its powers as an “active purchaser” than the vast majority of other states. That means it can decide which insurers can join the exchange, what plans and benefits are available and at what price.

The federal government — in pending proposed rules for 2017 — has signaled it too wants to have more of a hand in crafting plans. Healthcare.gov would be forging ahead on a path California already paved, swapping variety for simplicity in plan design.

“Not letting [health] plans define what’s right for consumers, but defining it on behalf of consumers … is a better model for the market,” said Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California.

“We want to make sure every consumer has good choice but not infinite choice,” said Lee.

Most other states, including those in the federal exchange, haven’t subscribed to that idea so far. They have a clearinghouse model, in which all health insurers and plan designs are accepted as long they comply with the Affordable Care Act. That can mean the same insurer offers multiple plans with slightly different premiums, deductibles and copays. Even within one metal tier, say silver, the same insurer might offer half a dozen slightly different plans.

Now, the federal government proposes to create standard cost-sharing designs in various metal tiers and make them easily accessible on healthcare.gov. And it’s considering how to improve “value” by being more selective about plans.

Covered California holds insurers to a higher bar than what’s required under the Affordable Care Act.

Covered California says it’s the only exchange in the country that requires all plans to be standardized (not just some, which the federal government is proposing).

But one of two health insurance regulators in California, the state Department of Insurance, said Covered California’s strict guidelines may not benefit consumers.

It has created a situation in which the exchange “has fewer carriers than would otherwise be the case,” said Janice Rocco, deputy commissioner of the California Department of Insurance.

Health insurers on a national level are “strongly” opposed to an active purchaser model for states served by healthcare.gov, including standardized benefits.

“It could discourage many from enrolling if they can’t find a policy that works best for them,” said Clare Krusing from America’s Health Insurance Plans.

“Where there is competition and choice is where consumers benefit and where health plans benefit,” said Krusing.

http://khn.org/news/will-healthcare-gov-get-a-california-makeover/

Covered California – one of the more successful state-operated ACA insurance exchanges – has two features that are currently being considered for the federally-operated ACA exchanges: standardized cost-sharing designs and active purchasing of plans.

By creating standards for deductibles and other cost sharing, it makes it easier for plan shoppers to compare plans since the out-of-pocket expenses theoretically would be the same. After checking provider lists to see if their physicians are in-network, and checking formularies to see if their drugs are covered, shoppers can then select their plans based on the premiums.

Of course there are still some uncertainties. It is not uncommon to obtain care out of network, so another plan’s network may have turned out to be preferable. Also medical conditions change which might require drugs that are not in the plan’s formulary but may be covered by other plans.

In contracting with plans for the exchanges, Covered California decided to use active purchasing. In a non-transparent process, Covered California negotiates with the plans in an attempt to gain the best value for the plan beneficiaries. Under this process, not all plans are accepted, thus the insurers are motivated to offer better value than they might otherwise.

Active purchasing introduces more instability into the process. Plans moving into or out of the exchanges may face unprecedented changes in their administrative requirements which can be very disruptive to their business model. Changes required by the instability of contracts increase administrative expenses which are ultimately borne by the plan beneficiaries, adding to costs when the intent was to decrease costs. These disruptions apply not only to the private insurers but also to the physicians and hospitals who are included in the networks. Since active purchasing reduces the number of plans available, any change in plans covered would have a greater impact on the contracted providers thereby threatening insolvency.

To no surprise, the private insurers are not enthusiastic about either standardization of the plans or active purchasing. With standardization, the plans are less able to hide their innovations that improve the profits and competitiveness of the plans (i.e., the plans can be more competitive when the consumers do not know what they are buying). Active purchasing drives plan revenues down and exposes them to greater risk since the contract may not be renewed.

Clare Krusing of the insurance lobby organization, AHIP, says, “Where there is competition and choice is where consumers benefit and where health plans benefit.” Instead of plans competing for contracts with the ACA exchanges, they want to compete for individual patients. But the patients lose because there is less plan oversight when there is no active purchasing, and there is less transparency when the plans do not have to comply with standardized cost-sharing.

Cost-sharing standardization and active purchasing are the types of incremental reforms we can expect from those who say that we must build on what we have. These will do almost nothing for the problems that face us such as the 29 million uninsured, the tens of millions underinsured, the loss of choice of health care providers, and the interminable increase in health care spending.

We do have a better choice. Join the forces who are advocating for a single payer national health program. With single payer, we would no longer have to direct our health policies to maintaining a lucrative private health insurance infrastructure. Instead we could direct our health policies to taking care of patients, and that, of course, is what reform should be all about.

State health coverage innovation and Section 1332 waivers: Implications for states

By Anne Phelps
Deloitte Health Policy Brief

Executive summary

Although states and the federal government have implemented most Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions, a few are scheduled to go into effect in the coming years. One such provision is Section 1332 State Innovation Waivers, (1332) which allows states to pursue alternative and innovative strategies for ensuring that residents have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance as long as they meet certain requirements. Within the constraints of Section 1332, states have numerous options for revamping their current approaches to providing health coverage to individuals and families. If approved, the waivers can go into effect beginning January 1, 2017. To implement reforms next year and take advantage of realizing innovative alternatives for health care coverage, states should consider acting now.

New guidance from the US Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury released at the end of 2015 indicates that waiver proposals from states using the federally facilitated health insurance exchange might not be considered feasible at this time because “the Federal platform cannot accommodate different rules for different states.” Instead, these states may want to consider establishing their own exchange platform and then apply for a 1332 waiver.

This health policy brief presents a number of potential waiver-associated coverage alternatives, including those being discussed by some states. While some options are mutually exclusive, states may include multiple innovative concepts in their applications. It is important to note that, even with the new HHS and Treasury guidance, the analysis required to support a 1332 waiver application may require states to leverage actuarial, policy, technology, and data expertise.

A final consideration

As the United States moves closer to the next presidential election, the health care landscape will continue to shift and evolve. Beginning in 2017, an Administration other than the Obama Administration will have stewardship over the ACA and its various provisions, including Section 1332 State Innovation Waivers, for the first time. States should be aware that – depending on where they are in the application process at the start of 2017 – approvals may depend on the goals of the new Administration.

http://www2.deloitte.com/us/state-innovation-and-waivers

PDF of report (8 pages):
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/life-sciences-health-care/us-dchs-state-health-innovation.pdf

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act allows states to pursue waivers allowing alternative approaches to implementation of the Act as long as they comply with certain minimal requirements. In December, HHS released an advisory which gives guidance to what sort of innovations might be approved. This Deloitte health policy brief includes this guidance in updating the description of Section 1332 waivers and how the states may use them.

A few points:

*  Section 1332 does allow innovations that can improve access and equity and thus should be considered by state activists who wish to improve their health care systems, though the innovations are quite limited.

*  Section 1332 does allow innovations that might rely more heavily on market dynamics and thus could threaten the social insurance gains of ACA, though those innovations are also quite limited, but state activists should be on guard to help protect what gains have been made.

*  States with federally facilitated health insurance exchanges will not be able to receive waivers because of the administrative complexity: “the Federal platform cannot accommodate different rules for different states.”

*  States that have not accepted federal funds to expand their Medicaid programs may find that the political climate may inhibit any efforts to improve their systems through waivers.

*  The December 2015 advisory indicates that HHS will be quite rigid in the interpretation of what innovations would be allowed. This will protect states from efforts to dismantle the gains of ACA, but it will also prevent states from using Section 1332 to establish a state-based single payer system. Nevertheless, improvements such as all-payer systems may be allowed, although the administrative requirements may be overwhelming.

*  The Deloitte report emphasizes the importance of politics: “Beginning in 2017, an Administration other than the Obama Administration will have stewardship over the ACA and its various provisions, including Section 1332 State Innovation Waivers, for the first time. States should be aware that – depending on where they are in the application process at the start of 2017 – approvals may depend on the goals of the new Administration.”

So this report does further confirm the fact that states can improve their health systems through Section 1332 waivers. Until we can enact a single payer national health program, state efforts should be pursued.

This report also confirms that state efforts alone are grossly inadequate and that federal legislation for a national health program is an imperative.

This year, single payer is back in the political arena. Although state reform efforts are encouraged, we cannot allow these efforts to displace or even dilute the drive for national single payer. Even if it is difficult to see the political path to immediate enactment, at a minimum, through education, grassroots and coalition efforts we can move much closer to the political threshold required to make single payer inevitable.

Read the Deloitte policy brief, give thought as to how far short Section 1332 waivers will leave us, and then join the national political movement that will finally bring health care justice to all.

State health coverage innovation and Section 1332 waivers: Implications for states

By Anne Phelps
Deloitte Health Policy Brief

Executive summary

Although states and the federal government have implemented most Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions, a few are scheduled to go into effect in the coming years. One such provision is Section 1332 State Innovation Waivers, (1332) which allows states to pursue alternative and innovative strategies for ensuring that residents have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance as long as they meet certain requirements. Within the constraints of Section 1332, states have numerous options for revamping their current approaches to providing health coverage to individuals and families. If approved, the waivers can go into effect beginning January 1, 2017. To implement reforms next year and take advantage of realizing innovative alternatives for health care coverage, states should consider acting now.

New guidance from the US Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury released at the end of 2015 indicates that waiver proposals from states using the federally facilitated health insurance exchange might not be considered feasible at this time because “the Federal platform cannot accommodate different rules for different states.” Instead, these states may want to consider establishing their own exchange platform and then apply for a 1332 waiver.

This health policy brief presents a number of potential waiver-associated coverage alternatives, including those being discussed by some states. While some options are mutually exclusive, states may include multiple innovative concepts in their applications. It is important to note that, even with the new HHS and Treasury guidance, the analysis required to support a 1332 waiver application may require states to leverage actuarial, policy, technology, and data expertise.

A final consideration

As the United States moves closer to the next presidential election, the health care landscape will continue to shift and evolve. Beginning in 2017, an Administration other than the Obama Administration will have stewardship over the ACA and its various provisions, including Section 1332 State Innovation Waivers, for the first time. States should be aware that – depending on where they are in the application process at the start of 2017 – approvals may depend on the goals of the new Administration.

http://www2.deloitte.com/us/state-innovation-and-waivers

PDF of report (8 pages):
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/life-sciences-health-care/us-dchs-state-health-innovation.pdf

Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act allows states to pursue waivers allowing alternative approaches to implementation of the Act as long as they comply with certain minimal requirements. In December, HHS released an advisory which gives guidance to what sort of innovations might be approved. This Deloitte health policy brief includes this guidance in updating the description of Section 1332 waivers and how the states may use them.

A few points:

*  Section 1332 does allow innovations that can improve access and equity and thus should be considered by state activists who wish to improve their health care systems, though the innovations are quite limited.

*  Section 1332 does allow innovations that might rely more heavily on market dynamics and thus could threaten the social insurance gains of ACA, though those innovations are also quite limited, but state activists should be on guard to help protect what gains have been made.

*  States with federally facilitated health insurance exchanges will not be able to receive waivers because of the administrative complexity: “the Federal platform cannot accommodate different rules for different states.”

*  States that have not accepted federal funds to expand their Medicaid programs may find that the political climate may inhibit any efforts to improve their systems through waivers.

*  The December 2015 advisory indicates that HHS will be quite rigid in the interpretation of what innovations would be allowed. This will protect states from efforts to dismantle the gains of ACA, but it will also prevent states from using Section 1332 to establish a state-based single payer system. Nevertheless, improvements such as all-payer systems may be allowed, although the administrative requirements may be overwhelming.

*  The Deloitte report emphasizes the importance of politics: “Beginning in 2017, an Administration other than the Obama Administration will have stewardship over the ACA and its various provisions, including Section 1332 State Innovation Waivers, for the first time. States should be aware that – depending on where they are in the application process at the start of 2017 – approvals may depend on the goals of the new Administration.”

So this report does further confirm the fact that states can improve their health systems through Section 1332 waivers. Until we can enact a single payer national health program, state efforts should be pursued.

This report also confirms that state efforts alone are grossly inadequate and that federal legislation for a national health program is an imperative.

This year, single payer is back in the political arena. Although state reform efforts are encouraged, we cannot allow these efforts to displace or even dilute the drive for national single payer. Even if it is difficult to see the political path to immediate enactment, at a minimum, through education, grassroots and coalition efforts we can move much closer to the political threshold required to make single payer inevitable.

Read the Deloitte policy brief, give thought as to how far short Section 1332 waivers will leave us, and then join the national political movement that will finally bring health care justice to all.

Single-payer health plan wouldn’t cost U.S. more

By Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein
Philadelphia Inquirer, February 5, 2016

In our “read my lips/over my dead body” political culture, the threat of tax increases usually shuts down proposals for single-payer national health insurance. Lately, conservative pundits – and even liberals like Hillary Clinton – have been repeating the mantra that single-payer insurance would break the bank.

Never mind that Canadians, Australians, and Western Europeans spend about half what we do on health care, enjoy universal coverage, and are healthier. Their health-care taxes are higher.

Or are they? According to our study in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, American taxpayers picked up 65 percent of the total health-care tab last year – a figure that will soon rise to 67 percent.

We paid $2.1 trillion in taxes to fund health care – $6,560 per person. That’s more per capita than Canadians or people in any other nation pay. Indeed, our tax-financed health-care bill is higher than total health spending (private as well as public) in any other nation except Switzerland.

Official accounts from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services peg taxpayers’ share of U.S. health spending at about 45 percent, a figure that includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Veterans Affairs. However, this kind of tally omits two important items.

First, it leaves out government spending to buy private health coverage for public employees like teachers, firefighters, and members of Congress. Indeed, government employers account for 28 percent of all employer health spending.

Second, it excludes tax subsidies for private employer-paid plans and other privately paid care – $326 billion last year – that mainly benefit affluent families.

Omitting these government expenditures from the official health-spending tabulations obscures the fact that our health-care system is already about two-thirds publicly funded. In contrast, the Office of Management and Budget, not to mention most health-policy experts, considers tax subsidies for private insurance to be tax expenditures.

Even many uninsured families pay thousands of dollars in taxes for the health care of others.

More than one-third of these tax dollars meander through private insurers on the way to the bedside. These private insurers siphon off 12 percent for their overhead and profits (vs. 2 percent in the Medicare program) and also inflict huge paperwork costs on doctors and hospitals. A shift to single-payer national health insurance would save at least $400 billion annually on paperwork alone, enough to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate co-payments and deductibles for the rest of us.

That means a national single-payer plan wouldn’t cost Americans any more than we’re currently spending. Moreover, the taxes to pay for it would be fully offset by the savings from eliminating private insurance premiums.

Moving from our current level of tax financing, 65 percent, to Canada’s 70.7 percent would mean a tax increase of about $185 billion per year. But Americans would save at least that much on premiums. The vast majority of American households would come out ahead financially, and everyone would be covered.

Drug and insurance firms that would lose billions under single-payer health coverage generously fund its detractors (including Clinton, who has gotten more health-industry dollars than any other presidential candidate). These naysayers suggest that a single-payer plan (or “Medicare for all,” as Bernie Sanders likes to call it) would downgrade Americans’ coverage, and they also raise the specter of big tax increases.

But a national single-payer plan would give all Americans the first-dollar coverage enjoyed by Canadians and Brits, and guarantee them a free choice of doctors and hospitals – a choice that private insurers currently deny to many of us.

Surprisingly, American taxpayers already pay enough to fund national health insurance. We just don’t get it.

Steffie Woolhandler, M.D. and David U. Himmelstein, M.D. are professors of health policy and management at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20160205_Single-payer_health_plan_wouldn_t_cost_U_S__more.html

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

There are two important reasons for distributing this update on how much we spend in taxes for the health system. One is that most people do not realize how much they are already spending for health care through mostly opaque tax policies – approaching two-thirds of our national health expenditures! Right now the more important reason is that people are bashing single payer reform with reports and articles based on selected taxes drawn from single payer financing proposals – particularly countering the brief single payer proposal from a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. Misinformation is rampant.

A big part of the problem is that most people have no idea what they are currently spending on health care, especially since most of it is hidden in our taxes. So when people “analyze” the single payer proposals by pulling out the various taxes, adding them up, along with recalculating upward what the expenditures would be under single payer, ignoring the savings that are already firmly established in the policy literature, then calculating the deficits in the federal budget that would result, and then projecting that out over ten years – the cumulative total is in the trillions – an almost incomprehensible number. Scary.

When individuals compare those enormous numbers with what they know they are currently spending – employee share of the premium for employer-sponsored plans, deductibles and copayments, and Medicare payroll taxes – they do not realize that this is only a small part of what they are actually paying, so the single payer taxes appear to be horrendous to them. Little do they realize that, with our current system, we will be spending about 43 trillion dollars on health care over the next decade, and much of the spending will be opaque to individuals and their families (since, again, two-thirds is paid through the tax system).

We now have claims on one side that the costs of single payer are egregiously high, and on the other that the savings for individuals and families will be phenomenal – conclusions that are reached by playing with these numbers. In fact, well designed single payer models save typical individuals and families an average of about 5 percent from their current total spending (including the hidden costs). Only very high income individuals would pay more.

By losing people in the fog of these incomprehensible numbers, the opponents are able to suppress discussion of the more important reasons why we should enact a single payer system: absolutely everyone is covered, deductibles and other financial barriers to care are greatly reduced or eliminated, free choice of health care professionals and hospitals is returned to patients, central planning ensures adequate but not excessive capacity in the system, excessive prices are reduced to fair levels, and economic policies are put in place that slow health care inflation to sustainable levels.

Do not get hung up on the numbers, Just remember that most people will see better numbers, whether they recognize them or not,  while everyone will see a superior health care system. And that is what single payer is all about.

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a nonpartisan educational organization. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office.

Single-payer health plan wouldn’t cost U.S. more

By Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein
Philadelphia Inquirer, February 5, 2016

In our “read my lips/over my dead body” political culture, the threat of tax increases usually shuts down proposals for single-payer national health insurance. Lately, conservative pundits – and even liberals like Hillary Clinton – have been repeating the mantra that single-payer insurance would break the bank.

Never mind that Canadians, Australians, and Western Europeans spend about half what we do on health care, enjoy universal coverage, and are healthier. Their health-care taxes are higher.

Or are they? According to our study in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, American taxpayers picked up 65 percent of the total health-care tab last year – a figure that will soon rise to 67 percent.

We paid $2.1 trillion in taxes to fund health care – $6,560 per person. That’s more per capita than Canadians or people in any other nation pay. Indeed, our tax-financed health-care bill is higher than total health spending (private as well as public) in any other nation except Switzerland.

Official accounts from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services peg taxpayers’ share of U.S. health spending at about 45 percent, a figure that includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Veterans Affairs. However, this kind of tally omits two important items.

First, it leaves out government spending to buy private health coverage for public employees like teachers, firefighters, and members of Congress. Indeed, government employers account for 28 percent of all employer health spending.

Second, it excludes tax subsidies for private employer-paid plans and other privately paid care – $326 billion last year – that mainly benefit affluent families.

Omitting these government expenditures from the official health-spending tabulations obscures the fact that our health-care system is already about two-thirds publicly funded. In contrast, the Office of Management and Budget, not to mention most health-policy experts, considers tax subsidies for private insurance to be tax expenditures.

Even many uninsured families pay thousands of dollars in taxes for the health care of others.

More than one-third of these tax dollars meander through private insurers on the way to the bedside. These private insurers siphon off 12 percent for their overhead and profits (vs. 2 percent in the Medicare program) and also inflict huge paperwork costs on doctors and hospitals. A shift to single-payer national health insurance would save at least $400 billion annually on paperwork alone, enough to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate co-payments and deductibles for the rest of us.

That means a national single-payer plan wouldn’t cost Americans any more than we’re currently spending. Moreover, the taxes to pay for it would be fully offset by the savings from eliminating private insurance premiums.

Moving from our current level of tax financing, 65 percent, to Canada’s 70.7 percent would mean a tax increase of about $185 billion per year. But Americans would save at least that much on premiums. The vast majority of American households would come out ahead financially, and everyone would be covered.

Drug and insurance firms that would lose billions under single-payer health coverage generously fund its detractors (including Clinton, who has gotten more health-industry dollars than any other presidential candidate). These naysayers suggest that a single-payer plan (or “Medicare for all,” as Bernie Sanders likes to call it) would downgrade Americans’ coverage, and they also raise the specter of big tax increases.

But a national single-payer plan would give all Americans the first-dollar coverage enjoyed by Canadians and Brits, and guarantee them a free choice of doctors and hospitals – a choice that private insurers currently deny to many of us.

Surprisingly, American taxpayers already pay enough to fund national health insurance. We just don’t get it.

Steffie Woolhandler, M.D. and David U. Himmelstein, M.D. are professors of health policy and management at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20160205_Single-payer_health_plan_wouldn_t_cost_U_S__more.html

There are two important reasons for distributing this update on how much we spend in taxes for the health system. One is that most people do not realize how much they are already spending for health care through mostly opaque tax policies – approaching two-thirds of our national health expenditures! Right now the more important reason is that people are bashing single payer reform with reports and articles based on selected taxes drawn from single payer financing proposals – particularly countering the brief single payer proposal from a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. Misinformation is rampant.

A big part of the problem is that most people have no idea what they are currently spending on health care, especially since most of it is hidden in our taxes. So when people “analyze” the single payer proposals by pulling out the various taxes, adding them up, along with recalculating upward what the expenditures would be under single payer, ignoring the savings that are already firmly established in the policy literature, then calculating the deficits in the federal budget that would result, and then projecting that out over ten years – the cumulative total is in the trillions – an almost incomprehensible number. Scary.

When individuals compare those enormous numbers with what they know they are currently spending – employee share of the premium for employer-sponsored plans, deductibles and copayments, and Medicare payroll taxes – they do not realize that this is only a small part of what they are actually paying, so the single payer taxes appear to be horrendous to them. Little do they realize that, with our current system, we will be spending about 43 trillion dollars on health care over the next decade, and much of the spending will be opaque to individuals and their families (since, again, two-thirds is paid through the tax system).

We now have claims on one side that the costs of single payer are egregiously high, and on the other that the savings for individuals and families will be phenomenal – conclusions that are reached by playing with these numbers. In fact, well designed single payer models save typical individuals and families an average of about 5 percent from their current total spending (including the hidden costs). Only very high income individuals would pay more.

By losing people in the fog of these incomprehensible numbers, the opponents are able to suppress discussion of the more important reasons why we should enact a single payer system: absolutely everyone is covered, deductibles and other financial barriers to care are greatly reduced or eliminated, free choice of health care professionals and hospitals is returned to patients, central planning ensures adequate but not excessive capacity in the system, excessive prices are reduced to fair levels, and economic policies are put in place that slow health care inflation to sustainable levels.

Do not get hung up on the numbers, Just remember that most people will see better numbers, whether they recognize them or not,  while everyone will see a superior health care system. And that is what single payer is all about.

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a nonpartisan educational organization. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office.

Licking Wounds, Insurers Accelerate Moves To Limit Health-Law Enrollment

By Jay Hancock
Kaiser Health News, February 4, 2016

Stung by losses under the federal health law, major insurers are seeking to sharply limit how policies are sold to individuals in ways that consumer advocates say seem to discriminate against the sickest and could hold down future enrollment.

In recent days Anthem, Aetna and Cigna, all among the top five health insurers, told brokers they will stop paying them sales commissions to sign up most customers who qualify for new coverage outside the normal enrollment period, according to the companies and broker documents.

Last year, these “special enrollment” clients were much more expensive than expected because lax enforcement allowed many who didn’t qualify to sign up, insurers said. Nearly a million special-enrollment customers selected plans in the first half of 2015, half of them after losing previous coverage.

In addition, Cigna and Humana, another big health insurer, have ceased paying brokers to sell many higher-benefit “gold” marketplace plans for individuals and families while continuing to pay commissions on more-profitable, lower-benefit “bronze” plans, according to documents and interviews.

Gold plans typically enroll sicker members than do less comprehensive policies, say insurance experts. As of June, more than 695,000 people had enrolled in gold plans.

But the retreat from broker sales, which includes last year’s decision by No. 1 carrier UnitedHealthcare to suspend almost any commissions for such business, erodes a pillar of the health law: that insurers must sell to all customers no matter how sick, consumer advocates say.

By inducing brokers to avoid high-cost members — whether in gold plans or special enrollment — the moves limit access to coverage and discriminate against those with greater medical needs, said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and an authority on the health law.

“The only explanation I can see for them doing this is risk avoidance — and that is discriminatory marketing and not permitted,” he said. “When people wonder why we’re not getting millions more enrollees in Affordable Care Act health plans, one reason is, the carriers are discouraging it.”

The insurance industry says it is not discriminating but adjusting to market realities including higher-than-expected medical claims and the failure of a government risk-adjustment program called “risk corridors” to cover much of that cost.

“Without making necessary changes to coverage and benefits, there was no way for health plans to remain in the market or to offer the kind of coverage as they had in the past without sustaining huge losses,” said Clare Krusing, spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry lobby.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated as recently as last March that 21 million consumers would be enrolled by now in private health insurance plans sold through online marketplaces. Now CBO forecasts 13 million will sign up this year.

Brokers are critical to sign-ups and the success of the health law. For 2014, 44 percent of Kentucky enrollees bought through brokers. So did 39 percent of the California enrollees. No similar figures are available for the marketplace that serves most states, healthcare.gov.

With varying commissions, brokers will be tempted to promote only plans they make money on, even if those aren’t the best for some customers, said John Jaggi, an Illinois broker and consultant.

“Now they’re really forcing the agent to think only of the plan that he gets compensated for,” he said.

http://khn.org/news/licking-wounds-insurers-accelerate-moves-to-limit-health-law-enrollment/

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

No matter what legislation, regulations, rules or advisories our government produces, the private insurance industry will always find ways to skirt the intent of this oversight in order to maximize their business goals, usually at a cost to patients and public and private payers. The current efforts of insurers to manipulate the brokers are a prime example of how they will continue to work the system to advance their own interests.

As the Affordable Care Act was being crafted and then implemented, there was a push to include brokers as intermediaries who would provide customer access to the exchange plans. The argument was that brokers were highly qualified to provide guidance on what the best plans would be for their clients. But little was said about how insurers might  find ways to use the brokers to to their own advantage.

As this article shows, insurers can heavily influence broker behavior through the commissions they grant. The insurers found that people who were signed up during special enrollment periods had greater health care needs and also were more likely to drop out after their needs were met. That’s easy. The insurers stopped paying commissions for most of the plans sold during these special enrollment periods. Also, people enrolling in gold plans, with their higher actuarial values (covered more of the costs), were also using more health care. Again, no problem. Many insurers quit paying commissions for gold plans but continued to pay them for lower actuarial value plans that required patients to pick up more of the costs of health care. Will the broker sell plans without a commission, when an insurer offers a commission for selling their more profitable plans?

Discrimination in the offering of private insurance plans is prohibited, but AHIP – the insurance lobby – says that insurers are not discriminating but rather are merely adjusting to market realities. Clare Krusing – AHIP’s spokesperson – said that there was no way “to offer the kind of coverage as they had in the past (gold or platinum plans) without sustaining huge losses.” It really is about profits, not patients.

And now many politicians and progressive pundits are telling us to build on Obamacare. Forget about single payer because it will “never, ever come to pass.” Instead let’s control costs through higher deductibles and other cost sharing, narrower networks, greater administrative hassles through ACOs and EHRs that keep professionals from tending to their patients, more opaque obstructions that keep sicker patients out of the private plans, more managed care that reduces access, especially to specialized services, *** **** ****, ***** ** ****, and ** ****** *****.

And those asterisks? They are the hidden future policies of the insurers that will further enhance their business models – policies that we can’t even conceive of since they can only be conjured up by the nefarious minds that are currently in control of our health care financing system. Do we really have to have a health care future that will eventually reveal to us what is behind the magic asterisks? Or shall we tell them on their way out the door where to put their asterisks, as we take over and set up our own single payer national health program?

Licking Wounds, Insurers Accelerate Moves To Limit Health-Law Enrollment

By Jay Hancock
Kaiser Health News, February 4, 2016

Stung by losses under the federal health law, major insurers are seeking to sharply limit how policies are sold to individuals in ways that consumer advocates say seem to discriminate against the sickest and could hold down future enrollment.

In recent days Anthem, Aetna and Cigna, all among the top five health insurers, told brokers they will stop paying them sales commissions to sign up most customers who qualify for new coverage outside the normal enrollment period, according to the companies and broker documents.

Last year, these “special enrollment” clients were much more expensive than expected because lax enforcement allowed many who didn’t qualify to sign up, insurers said. Nearly a million special-enrollment customers selected plans in the first half of 2015, half of them after losing previous coverage.

In addition, Cigna and Humana, another big health insurer, have ceased paying brokers to sell many higher-benefit “gold” marketplace plans for individuals and families while continuing to pay commissions on more-profitable, lower-benefit “bronze” plans, according to documents and interviews.

Gold plans typically enroll sicker members than do less comprehensive policies, say insurance experts. As of June, more than 695,000 people had enrolled in gold plans.

But the retreat from broker sales, which includes last year’s decision by No. 1 carrier UnitedHealthcare to suspend almost any commissions for such business, erodes a pillar of the health law: that insurers must sell to all customers no matter how sick, consumer advocates say.

By inducing brokers to avoid high-cost members — whether in gold plans or special enrollment — the moves limit access to coverage and discriminate against those with greater medical needs, said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and an authority on the health law.

“The only explanation I can see for them doing this is risk avoidance — and that is discriminatory marketing and not permitted,” he said. “When people wonder why we’re not getting millions more enrollees in Affordable Care Act health plans, one reason is, the carriers are discouraging it.”

The insurance industry says it is not discriminating but adjusting to market realities including higher-than-expected medical claims and the failure of a government risk-adjustment program called “risk corridors” to cover much of that cost.

“Without making necessary changes to coverage and benefits, there was no way for health plans to remain in the market or to offer the kind of coverage as they had in the past without sustaining huge losses,” said Clare Krusing, spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry lobby.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated as recently as last March that 21 million consumers would be enrolled by now in private health insurance plans sold through online marketplaces. Now CBO forecasts 13 million will sign up this year.

Brokers are critical to sign-ups and the success of the health law. For 2014, 44 percent of Kentucky enrollees bought through brokers. So did 39 percent of the California enrollees. No similar figures are available for the marketplace that serves most states, healthcare.gov.

With varying commissions, brokers will be tempted to promote only plans they make money on, even if those aren’t the best for some customers, said John Jaggi, an Illinois broker and consultant.

“Now they’re really forcing the agent to think only of the plan that he gets compensated for,” he said.

http://khn.org/news/licking-wounds-insurers-accelerate-moves-to-limit-health-law-enrollment/

No matter what legislation, regulations, rules or advisories our government produces, the private insurance industry will always find ways to skirt the intent of this oversight in order to maximize their business goals, usually at a cost to patients and public and private payers. The current efforts of insurers to manipulate the brokers are a prime example of how they will continue to work the system to advance their own interests.

As the Affordable Care Act was being crafted and then implemented, there was a push to include brokers as intermediaries who would provide customer access to the exchange plans. The argument was that brokers were highly qualified to provide guidance on what the best plans would be for their clients. But little was said about how insurers might  find ways to use the brokers to to their own advantage.

As this article shows, insurers can heavily influence broker behavior through the commissions they grant. The insurers found that people who were signed up during special enrollment periods had greater health care needs and also were more likely to drop out after their needs were met. That’s easy. The insurers stopped paying commissions for most of the plans sold during these special enrollment periods. Also, people enrolling in gold plans, with their higher actuarial values (covered more of the costs), were also using more health care. Again, no problem. Many insurers quit paying commissions for gold plans but continued to pay them for lower actuarial value plans that required patients to pick up more of the costs of health care. Will the broker sell plans without a commission, when an insurer offers a commission for selling their more profitable plans?

Discrimination in the offering of private insurance plans is prohibited, but AHIP – the insurance lobby – says that insurers are not discriminating but rather are merely adjusting to market realities. Clare Krusing – AHIP’s spokesperson – said that there was no way “to offer the kind of coverage as they had in the past (gold or platinum plans) without sustaining huge losses.” It really is about profits, not patients.

And now many politicians and progressive pundits are telling us to build on Obamacare. Forget about single payer because it will “never, ever come to pass.” Instead let’s control costs through higher deductibles and other cost sharing, narrower networks, greater administrative hassles through ACOs and EHRs that keep professionals from tending to their patients, more opaque obstructions that keep sicker patients out of the private plans, more managed care that reduces access, especially to specialized services, *** **** ****, ***** ** ****, and ** ****** *****.

And those asterisks? They are the hidden future policies of the insurers that will further enhance their business models – policies that we can’t even conceive of since they can only be conjured up by the nefarious minds that are currently in control of our health care financing system. Do we really have to have a health care future that will eventually reveal to us what is behind the magic asterisks? Or shall we tell them on their way out the door where to put their asterisks, as we take over and set up our own single payer national health program?

Buying Supplemental Insurance Can Be Hard For Younger Medicare Beneficiaries

By Susan Jaffe
Kaiser Health News, February 3, 2016

Federal law requires companies to sell Medigap plans to any Medicare beneficiary aged 65 or older within six months of signing up for Part B, which covers doctor visits and other outpatient services. If they sign up during this guaranteed open enrollment, they cannot be charged higher premiums due to their medical conditions.

But Congress left it to states to determine whether Medigap plans are sold to the more than 9 million people younger than 65 years old who qualify for Medicare because of a disability.

In 20 states and the District of Columbia, home to more than 2 million disabled Medicare beneficiaries, insurers are not required to sell Medigap policies to customers under 65. In other states, insurers cannot reject applicants if they enroll when they first join Medicare. Companies in some states, including Virginia, can still charge higher premiums to younger beneficiaries or those with kidney disease, often making policies unaffordable.

In California, Massachusetts and Vermont, insurers are required to sell Medigap policies to anyone with Medicare, except to people… who are under 65 and have end stage renal disease.

The federal health law provides no relief for these younger Medicare beneficiaries. One of its most popular provisions prohibits discrimination by insurance companies in the non-Medicare market based on pre-existing conditions or age, but the law is silent on Medigap.

Prospects for a nationwide solution are dim because expanding Medigap coverage could lead to these beneficiaries with disabilities receiving more care and raising costs for the Medicare program. Congress is looking for strategies to curb Medicare spending, not increase it.

The health insurance industry’s trade association opposes expanding Medigap to include all Medicare beneficiaries younger than 65 with end stage renal kidney disease. Since treatment for those patients can be so expensive, adding them could increase Medigap premiums for everyone, said Cindy Goff, a vice president at America’s Health Insurance Plans.

Older adults are “super price-sensitive” and raising premiums “would basically price them out of being able to get the Medigap protection they want,” said Goff.

http://khn.org/news/buying-supplemental-insurance-can-be-hard-for-younger-medicare-beneficiaries-2/

***

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

It has long been recognized that the benefits of the Medicare program are inadequate, leaving too many exposed to financial hardship and impaired access due to financial barriers. Some are protected with retiree health benefit plans or with backup by the Medicaid program, but for others, the private Medigap insurance plans were developed. This article shows that the rules for Medigap plan eligibility may still leave vulnerable those who quality for Medicare based on a disability – some of the most neediest of Medicare beneficiaries.

Medigap plans are a poor solution for the inadequacies of Medicare coverage. They are overpriced when considering the benefits received, and are usually unaffordable for those who do not quite qualify for dual Medicare/Medicaid coverage. They add significantly to the administrative complexity of administering Medicare, wasting funds that would be better spent on health care. It would be far more efficient to roll the Medigap benefits into the Medicare program. That would be an important component of the “Improved” in an “Improved Medicare for All” which could be the basis of a single payer national health program.

Congress has left to the states decisions on whether or not private insurers selling Medigap plans must do so on a guaranteed issue basis (plans must be sold to any applicant regardless of medical status), and also if the plans can be subject to medical underwriting (charging higher premiums for those with greater health needs). Just as we see with Medicaid, states under the rule of heartless politicians frequently decide to turn these disabled patients over to the marketplace – further exposing them to a life of physical suffering and financial hardship.

Generally, individuals must purchase their Medigap plans soon after enrolling in Medicare. This applies to both those over 65 and those under 65 with disabilities. The high premiums charged for these plans are one of the many reasons that individuals decide to forgo initial enrollment and then become ineligible later on when medical needs may be even greater. This is yet one more example of a policy that prevents individuals from having access to coverage when our national policies should be designed to achieve the opposite – ensuring enrollment of absolutely everyone, throughout life.

Medigap is another bad idea brought to us by the private insurance industry. It works well for insurers, but not so well for too many patients. We should dump it along with the rest of the private insurance industry and establish our own equitable, publicly-funded and publicly-administered single payer system. How can we leave so many of our disabled residents hanging like we do?