Archive

Posts Tagged ‘individal mandate’

Administration, Congress would leave CSR subsidies in limbo in latest court filing

May 22nd, 2017 Comments off

President Donald Trump and House Republicans have decided not to blow up the Obamacare health insurance markets just yet. In a filing to a federal appeals court Monday, the Justice Department and lawyers representing House Republicans have requested another 90-day delay in the proceedings from a case challenging the legality of payments made to health insurers serving low-income customers. “The parties continue to discuss measures that would obviate the need for judicial determination of this appeal, including potential legislative action,” attorneys for both parties wrote to the appeals court.

Source: Trump Decides Not To Blow Up Obamacare — Yet | HuffPost

If the U.S. District Court of Appeals grants this request, the legal uncertainty over the reduced cost sharing subsidies for silver actuarial value (AV) plans sold in state health benefit exchanges would potentially continue for the rest of the summer. As the article notes, those subsidies could be cut off at any time by the Trump administration and an appeal in the case, House v. Price, dropped. That would leave intact a U.S. District Court ruling one year ago finding the subsidies cannot be allocated by the executive branch without congressional appropriation. Neither the Trump administration nor the current Congress are committed to keeping the exchange market functional and have little motivation to resolve the matter.

These circumstances will likely prompt plan issuers to increase plan year 2018 premium rates as a precaution as rate filings are due to state regulators in the next month since the Affordable Care Act would continue to require them to offer more generous coverage than standard 70 percent AV silver plans for households earning below 250 percent of federal poverty levels and purchasing though the exchanges. At least one plan issuer, Anthem, has indicated it would have to boost premiums by at least 20 percent to cover the potential loss of the CSR subsidies.

A second consecutive year of double digit premium increases could threaten the actuarial viability of the state non-group market risk pools since those eligible for little or no advance premium tax credit subsidies would likely flee the market. Particularly if the Trump administration doesn’t enforce the ACA’s individual mandate, making that option more appealing.

Some state regulators including California and most recently New Mexico have asked plan issuers to file two sets of premium rates, one assuming continuation of the subsidies and another without them.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Indication of trouble with ACA’s individual mandate compliance

February 4th, 2016 1 comment

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.The health law allows people who lose other coverage, families with new children and others in certain circumstances to buy insurance after enrollment season ends. In most states the deadline for 2016 coverage was Jan. 31.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.

Source: Licking Wounds, Insurers Accelerate Moves To Limit Health-Law Enrollment | California Healthline

This is a development that should be followed closely because it hints at fundamental problems with the implementation of the keystone policy bargain of the Affordable Care Act’s individual market reforms. Health plan issuers agreed to forgo medical underwriting and accept all applicants regardless of health status and medical history. Provided everyone not covered by an employer or government-paid health plan have continuous, year round coverage.

This story suggests that at least some consumers aren’t keeping up their end of the policy bargain to be continuously covered and are gaming the rules that allow enrollment outside of three-month-long annual open enrollment period for those who lost employer-sponsored coverage, moved or had a change in family status and other life circumstances. They are effectively using coverage actuarially designed for annual enrollment terms as short term coverage of less than one year since according to some insurers, they’re dropping their coverage soon after signing up under the special enrollment provisions. And since they’re only in for the short term, they’re inclined to select plans that have the lowest out of pocket cost sharing: gold and platinum plans. (Plans sold as short term coverage aren’t covered by the Affordable Care Act’s individual market reforms. Pre-existing conditions can be excluded and they typically offer a much narrower scope of benefits than ACA-compliant plans).

The Obama administration apparently recognizes this issue undermines the individual market reform framework. Andy Slavitt, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a J.P. Morgan health-care conference in San Francisco last month that CMS will tighten up its rules governing special enrollments outside of the annual open enrollment period, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Clearly, more information is needed to better understand this phenom. For example, are peoples’ lives so subject to changing life circumstances that most anyone can qualify for special enrollment, mooting the annual enrollment periods? Does “waiting to get sick” as reported in mainstream media as a driver for special enrollments really mean getting high cost elective procedures given that most people aren’t able to time when they will develop a serious illness or be injured in an accident? If consumers are defrauding the special enrollment rules by falsely claiming a life event, is that part of the “culture of coping” the Affordable Care Act is intended to reduce, with consumers too financially pinched to pay their premiums for the entire year, even with advance premium tax credits?

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

%d bloggers like this: