Tag Archive: individual market

Iowa files urgent ACA 1332 waiver request to preserve 2018 non-group market

Facing the prospect of no health plan issuers offering coverage in the individual, non-group medical insurance market in 2018, Iowa is urgently asking the federal government for a state innovation waiver under Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The proposed stopgap measure by the state’s Insurance Division requests federal premium and cost sharing subsidies be used to fund the Proposed Stopgap Measure (“PSM”) Plan. The plan would offer a single standardized benefit plan with an actuarial value of 68 to 72 percent with premium subsidies determined by age and household income. It also proposes the federal Affordable Care Act funding support a reinsurance program for individuals incurring medical expenses greater than $100,000.

 


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. 

Growth in self employment points to need for non-group medical coverage

Another reason insurers will likely return or work to remain in the individual market is that it’s part of the future of health care, says Counihan. With so many people now working for themselves in the “gig economy,” he says, selling insurance “is going to be more business-to-consumer than business-to-business.””This market could grow,” agrees Giesa. “And I don’t think [insurance companies] want to be left out completely from this market if there’s an opportunity to break even, or make a little money. “In the end, says Counihan, regardless of what he considers the Trump administration’s “disorganized neglect, I think this market is here to stay.”

Source: What Happens If The Individual Health Insurance Market Crashes? : Shots – Health News : NPR

Kevin Counihan served as head of the Department of Health Service’s insurance exchange program in the Obama administration. Kurt Giesa is an actuarial expert at the consulting firm Oliver Wyman.

While most working age Americans are covered by employer medical benefit plans that have dominated since the 1940s, there are indications this is changing and pointing to the need for a viable method of financing medical care outside of employer group coverage. The executive summary of a recent McKinsey Global Research survey reports 20 to 30 percent of the working-age population in the United States and the EU-15 countries are engaged in some form of non-employment vocation.

 


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. 

Measures would allow individuals to purchase small group plans sold by DC health benefit exchange and federal employee plan to fill gaps in state individual markets

Two measures were recently introduced in Congress to address gaps in the non-group medical insurance market by allowing individuals and their family members to buy into small group plans sold through the District of Columbia’s health benefit exchange’s Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) if their state health benefit exchange offers no plans where they live.

The Health Care Options for All Act (S.1201, McCaskill) would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to establish a mechanism for their enrollment. A companion measure to S.1201, H.R. 2770 (Loebsack) was introduced in the House June 2; text for the bill is not yet available. The DC SHOP currently offers coverage to members of Congress and their staffs as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The District of Columbia health benefit exchange, DC Health Link, is reportedly opposed fearing the proposal if enacted would turn the DC exchange into a de facto national high risk pool.

Section 1334 of the ACA authorizes OPM to contract with health insurance issuers or a group of affiliated plan issuers to offer plans in all states as of this 2017. While the intent is to ensure exchanges can offer plans in all areas, the “multistate plans” authorized by Section 1334 are available in less than half of the states.

The bills could raise objections from health plan issuers since they broadly organize their product lines as employer group or non-group (individual) coverage and risk rate, price and establish provider networks separately for each. In addition, the Affordable Care Act segregates small group and individual coverage into separate statewide risk pools. However, states may merge their individual and small group markets under Section 1312(c)(3) of the law “if the State determines appropriate.” ACA Section 1311(b)(2) also affords states the option to merge their individual and SHOP exchanges.

Another measure introduced in early May, (H.R. 2400, Issa) also disregards the distinction between the group and non-group market segments by allowing individuals who are not federal employees to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

 


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. 

Return to high risk pools implies failure of ACA’s single statewide risk pool

The return to state high risk pools encouraged by Trump administration executive action and as proposed in the American Health Reform Act pending in the Senate — mechanisms phased out with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforms of the non-group segment effective in 2014 — carries with it a critical implication. Specifically, the individual market even with single statewide risk pools mandated by Section 1312(c) the Affordable Care Act are too small —  in some less populous states at least — to achieve a sufficient spread of risk. Therefore, the logic implies, individuals with conditions who use largely disproportionate amounts of medical care must be excluded from the statewide pool and cordoned off in high risk pools in order to maintain the pool’s actuarial viability and ward off adverse selection in the individual market.

That cuts against a core assumption of the Affordable Care Act — that by having all individuals and family members in a given state treated as one large risk pool, a sufficient spread of risk would be achieved. In addition, the law’s premium stabilization programs and an ongoing risk adjustment mechanism to compensate health plan issuers who take on members with costly, complex chronic conditions would act as buffers to ensure the actuarial integrity of the pool and reduce the likelihood of adverse selection. The proposed revival of high risk pools would suggest that’s not the case and the amount of medical care utilized by some pool members is so costly that it skews an entire state’s risk pool.

This in turn leads to a far larger implication. If 5 percent of the pool population account for 50 percent of the costs — or 1 percent accounting for 20 percent to use another expression of the ratio cited in this National Institute for Health Care Management data brief — then medical care may not be an insurable risk due to insufficient spread of risk. If that’s the case, it could result in plan issuers ceding most or all of the loss risk to the government as is currently the case in Medicare and Medicaid managed care. Notably, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini reportedly suggested just that, according to this account at Reason.com, with nominal insurers taking on the role of plan administrators handling “back room” transactions:

The government doesn’t administer anything. The first thing they’ve ever tried to administer in social programs was the ACA, and that didn’t go so well. So the industry has always been the back room for government. If the government wants to pay all the bills, and employers want to stop offering coverage, and we can be there in a public private partnership to do the work we do today with Medicare, and with Medicaid at every state level, we run the Medicaid programs for them, then let’s have that conversation.

Note the second condition in Bertolini’s statement: If employers want to stop offering coverage. Complain as they may about rising premiums in group coverage, there’s no indication that the highly entrenched employee benefit model of covering medical care for the non-elderly is going to be abandoned by employers anytime soon. Even if the Affordable Care Act’s mandate on employers of 50 or more to offer coverage is repealed given favorable tax treatment of employer-sponsored medical care plans.

 


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. 

House Passes AHCA. Next step is to the Senate… with a whole new bill. | Michael Lujan | Pulse | LinkedIn

Source: House Passes AHCA. Next step is to the Senate… with a whole new bill. | Michael Lujan | Pulse | LinkedIn

In this piece, Michael Lujan does a good job outlining the basic insurance principles. The problem however in the non-group market goes deeper than a failure to understand the relatively simple rules that govern all forms of insurance. Paying for medical costs shifted away the major medical risk insurance model to the prepaid model that came with the rise with HMOs and managed care organizations in the 1970s and 1980s.

Hence, consumers don’t see medical risk sharing in the same way they view other forms of personal insurance intended to protect against accidental or unexpected large losses such as life, homeowners and auto. The managed care model of bundling in relatively low cost primary care has furthered that perception. Consequently, consumers chafe at basic insurance functions such as underwriting and being asked to pay deductibles and otherwise assume a degree of risk. To them, it appears as a take away — “unusable” coverage that reduces value in their eyes, especially as premiums rise.

Unless consumers of individually sold medical plans see them as insurance and something only to be used when needed to cover large, unexpected medical costs, the segment will continue to struggle regardless of reform efforts such as the current House bill. It would restore another insurance basic with medically underwritten premium rating for states that opt to allow it for individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage provided the state has established a high-risk pool or participates in a federally-sponsored high-risk pool.

As long as consumers are reluctant to be insured in the conventional insurance sense for medical risk and insurers are reluctant to cover it, the long term viability of the non-group market remains in question.

 


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. 

Non-group market faces decidedly mixed outlook for plan year 2018 — and possible demise in 2019.

Several recent positive developments point toward plan issuers staying in the non-group or individual market next year.

  • The Trump administration finalized its Market Stabilization rulemaking intended to build confidence among plans by affording them more predictability and reducing the possibility of consumer gaming that plans say have increased their loss exposure.
  • On April 7, Standard & Poor’s opined that the individual market is showing signs of stabilizing in its fourth year based on its analysis of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans that found loss ratios declined from 106 and 102 percent for 2015 and 2014, respectively, to 92 percent for 2016.
  • This week in a closely watched move, Anthem tentatively committed to the individual market in 2018, but warned it could change its mind or raise premium rates by 20 percent or more depending on the outcome of pending litigation over cost sharing reduction subsidies that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes available to households earning between 100 and 250 of federal poverty levels for silver actuarial value plans sold on state health benefit exchanges.

Which brings us to the negatives. If the litigation, House v. Price, is not resolved by early June, Anthem could execute the aforementioned steep rate increases and possible state market withdrawals. The likelihood is high. The reason is neither the House of Representatives nor the Trump administration has sufficient motivation to resolve the case. The House prevailed when the U.S. District Court where the case was brought issued a ruling one year ago agreeing with the House that the Obama administration unconstitutionally infringed on the House’s appropriation powers by funding the cost sharing reductions administratively.

The district court held the ruling in abeyance pending appeal by the administration. That decision is likely to become final and go into effect following a status conference with the parties late next month. The Trump administration isn’t likely to appeal the decision and would be happy to see a final ruling “blow up” the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance market reforms in President Trump’s words. The House for its part isn’t likely to dismiss the case because it sees the ruling in its favor as an important precedent to check executive branch authority from impinging on its powers of appropriation.

In addition, Congress and the Trump administration are unlikely to moot the case by enacting their own health care reform legislation in place of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance market reforms in the current congressional term due to heavy reliance on the limited scope budget reconciliation process, intra-party squabbling, lack of bi-partisan support and the inability or unwillingness of the Trump administration to articulate clear guiding policy principles.

The loss of the cost sharing subsidies would blow a hole estimated at $10 billion in exchange finances. That could well prompt Anthem and other plan issuers to head for the exits just as their plans must be finalized for 2018. That could effectively end the exchanges and the individual market as a whole next year. The more likely scenario is the plans as Anthem indicated it would price in the loss of the cost sharing subsidies in their final premium rates.

That would keep the individual market alive and on life support for 2018. But it would face a possible demise in 2019, with shrunken statewide risk pools and increased risk of the dreaded death spiral of adverse selection. The number of covered lives would decline both inside and outside of the exchanges. Outside the exchanges, the 401 percenters – households earning more than 400 percent of federal poverty levels and ineligible for premium tax credit subsidies for qualified health plans sold on the state exchanges – would likely bolt from the individual market after getting notice of another 20 plus percent premium increase for the second consecutive year. (California’s exchange, Covered California, estimates the loss of reduced cost sharing subsidies would boost premiums for silver level plans double that amount, 42 percent on average and as many as 340,000 Californians would drop out of the individual market in 2018.) They will file for exemptions from the individual mandate based on unaffordable premiums, seek alternatives such as health sharing ministries or simply go bare in the hope the Internal Revenue Service under the Trump administration won’t enforce the individual mandate penalties for not having coverage.

 


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. 

Fate of 2018 individual market could turn on plan issuer response to proposed Market Stabilization rulemaking

With efforts to enact a successor to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act bogging down in the legislative process as health plan issuers must soon make decisions on their participation in the individual market and state health benefit exchanges for plan year 2018, much could ride on the Trump administration’s pending Market Stabilization administrative rulemaking and whether it will instill sufficient market confidence among plan issuers worried about losses and adverse selection. Indeed, the outcome of the rulemaking could well determine whether an individual market exists at all in many states next year as Congress debates changes to the Affordable Care Act’s commercial medical insurance market reforms but also the scope and financing of the six-decade-old Medicaid program.

The Department of Health and Human Services is fast tracking the rulemaking and currently reviewing about 4,000 comments received by the March 7 comment deadline. The scope of the rulemaking would directly apply to plans offered on state health benefit exchanges in states where the federal government operates the exchange or provides the online enrollment platform. As for the dozen states that operate their own exchanges, HHS states in the proposed rulemaking it understands those exchanges may not be able to implement the rule in 2017. It asked for comment on an appropriate transitional period for state-based exchanges and whether the rule should be optional for them. HHS also sought comment on how the rulemaking should apply to plans sold outside the exchanges.

The proposed rule is aimed at reducing the likelihood of enrollee gaming and adverse selection by requiring verification of eligibility for special enrollment periods and supporting continuous enrollment. It would more closely conform individual coverage to employer-sponsored and Medicare coverage by establishing the plan year 2018 open enrollment period as November 1 to December 15, 2017. The rulemaking would require those seeking to enroll outside this period to provide documented evidence of life events such as a change in family status or loss of employer-sponsored coverage. It also would make it easier for health plan issuers to collect lapsed premium payments from the prior year upon renewal, liberalizes the actuarial value definitions of all but silver plans as affords states and plan issuers greater leeway for determining provider network adequacy.

“Continued uncertainty around the future of the markets and concerns regarding the risk pools are two of the primary reasons issuer participation in some areas around the country has been limited,” HHS stated in the preamble to the proposed rule. “The proposed changes in this rule are intended to promote issuer participation in these markets and to address concerns raised by issuers, states, and consumers. We believe such changes would result in broader choices and more affordable coverage.”

While the rulemaking is intended to provide a degree of certainty to plan issuers, it can’t provide a full remedy. The lack of quick legislative progress on an ACA successor has increased the likelihood a federal court ruling finding executive branch funding of out of pocket cost subsidies for silver plans sold on the exchanges unconstitutional will take effect. Implementation of the ruling is temporarily on hold pending legislative action. With both inter and intra party legislative gridlock on health care reform, the Trump administration is far less likely to appeal the decision, allowing it to stand.

 


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. 

To “401 percenters” Affordable Care Act isn’t

WASHINGTON (AP) — Michael Schwarz is a self-employed business owner who buys his own health insurance. The subsidized coverage “Obamacare” offers protection from life’s unpredictable changes and freedom to pursue his vocation, he says.Brett Dorsch is also self-employed and buys his own health insurance. But he gets no financial break from the Affordable Care Act. “To me, it’s just been a big lie,” Dorsch says, forcing him to pay more for less coverage.Schwarz and Dorsch represent two Americas, pulling farther apart over former President Barack Obama’s health care law. Known as the ACA, the law rewrote the rules for people buying their own health insurance, creating winners and losers.Those with financial subsidies now fear being harmed by President Donald Trump and Republicans intent on repealing and replacing the ACA. But other consumers who also buy their own insurance and don’t qualify for financial help feel short-changed by Obama’s law. They’re hoping repeal will mean relief from rising premiums.

Source: News from The Associated Press

This is one of the major weaknesses of the Affordable Care Act’s reforms of the individual medical insurance market. Naturally, households earning in excess of 400 percent of federal poverty and who don’t qualify for subsidies are going to be unhappy since they bear the full brunt of premium increases as health plan issuers try to stabilize the market segment under the the law’s provisions by raising premiums. It’s no surprise these 401 percenters as I dubbed them aren’t in favor of keeping those rules in place since from their perspective, they’ve gotten a raw deal other than appreciating the rule requiring plans to accept them regardless of medical history.

The situation also points up the problem of a means-tested scenario of providing medical coverage to those not covered by employer-sponsored plans or Medicare. It’s far from seamless under the Affordable Care Act. The law created multiple categories of benefits and costs for this cohort keyed to household income: 1) Medicaid; 2) Qualified Health Plans offered on state health benefit exchanges with subsidies based on multiple income tranches; and 3) Unsubsidized plans, typically sold outside of the exchanges.

A more elegant, unified scenario is sorely needed, particularly given more households now rely on earnings outside of formal employment arrangements that come with medical benefits or are employed by small employers offering little or minimal coverage.

 


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. 

What Trumpcare will likely look like

Donald Trump is following the path of every president elected before him from at least the Truman administration forward, proclaiming a public policy goal of providing medical insurance to all Americans. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” the soon to be president told The Washington Post last week. “It will be in a much simplified form,” he said. “Much less expensive and much better” than what’s available under the Affordable Care Act.

How will Trump bring that about? Wryly playing off then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s famous statement in early 2010 that opponents of the Affordable Care Act would have to first vote for it in order to see all of its provisions, Trump similarly wants to see his Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Tom Price confirmed by the Senate before he reveals his plan.

I’ll go out on a limb and make some predictions on the rough outlines. This prediction assumes Trump will forge his own policy in this area and not necessarily conform to longstanding Republican principles that were posted to his transition website but have since been taken down. Trump’s reform plan won’t be a wholesale repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It will at least initially keep much of the omnibus reform statute intact and concentrate on scrapping Titles I and II dealing with the individual market reforms and expanded Medicaid eligibility to single adults given these components of the law have dominated the Republican reform agenda.

The Trump administration’s plan will give up on trying to make the problematic and inherently unstable individual market as it’s currently structured work with a mix of incentives and disincentives like those of the Affordable Care Act. The Trump plan will likely largely replace the nongroup market with something ironically along the lines of what Affordable Care Act designer Ezekiel Emanuel suggested last week: automatic enrollment in a catastrophic plan. Trump’s plan could offer a level of basic coverage for all working age Americans, starting when the reach their 18th birthday and lasting until they go onto Medicare at age 65 or older. As per Emanuel’s concept, there would be an option to enroll in supplemental plans for those who need or desire more generous coverage, similar to Medicare advantage plans. Most of the funding would come from new payroll and self-employment taxes. These supplemental plans could conceivably comport with Trump’s statement that his plan would offer low deductibles.

This reform of the nongroup market would also pave the way for a gradual transition away from employer-sponsored group plans. Employers would fund the aforementioned supplemental plans as an employee benefit. Or not. Either way, the dominance of employer-sponsored all inclusive medical coverage – which also dates to the Truman administration – would begin to go into decline.

As Trump stated previously, his plan will end the Title II Medicaid reforms and turn Medicaid into a state block grant program. Health savings accounts contribution limits will be increased and contributions permitted to cover supplemental plan premiums and any uncovered medical or dental expenses.

Finally, look for Trump’s plan to focus strongly on prescription drug costs to bend the medical care cost curve, creating a bidding entity or even a federal monopsony that will effectively set the prices of medications for all government programs, including the new basic health plan. Trump indicated in a news conference last week he will play hardball with the pharmaceutical industry.

 


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. 

Democrats open to replacing Obamacare – POLITICO

Senate Democrats will never vote to repeal Obamacare. But once the deed is done, a surprising number of them say they’re open to helping Republicans replace it.“If it makes sense, I think there’ll be a lot of Democrats who would be for it,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).As Republicans aim to make good on their years-long vow to quash Obamacare and replace it with their own health care vision, they’ll have to do something Democrats were never able to: Bring members of the opposing party on board. Enacting any substantive alternative will take at least eight Democratic votes in the Senate.

Source: Democrats open to replacing Obamacare – POLITICO

This item points up the political reality that while one party — the GOP — can defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act via budget resolution, it will take members of both parties to replace it in order to get the necessary 60 yes votes in the Senate to head off a long filibuster. That gives minority Democrats a large degree of influence over the law’s successor.

The pressure for a deal on that legislation during the first quarter of 2017 will be intense. Both parties will hear plenty from constituents concerned they will lose their health coverage. They will also hear from health plan issuers who fear a meltdown of the individual market segment and may demand a bailout to remain in the market. Health care providers and especially hospitals will also weigh in with urgency, concerned a loss of the individual market as well as more expansive Medicaid coverage in most states under the ACA will lead to a jump in uncompensated care.

 


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: