Blog Home

Archive for the 'Consumers' Category




Implementing Health Reform: Minimum Essential Coverage And The Multi-State Plan


November 24th, 2014

Two earlier posts this past weekend analyzed the massive Department of Health and Human Services 2016 Benefit and Payment Parameter Proposed Rule, released on November 21.  Also on November 21, the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury released a final rule on Minimum Essential Coverage and Other Rules Regarding the Shared Responsibility Payment for Individuals, while the Office of Personnel Management released proposed modifications to the multi-state plan (MSP) program rule.  This post explores these rules.

Minimum Essential Coverage

The ACA requires Americans to either maintain “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) or pay a tax.  There are a number of exceptions to the requirement, however, and the concept of MEC can become quite complicated.  The final rule published by the IRS provides guidance as to the meaning of MEC and the rules governing some of the exceptions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: 2016 Benefit And Payment Parameters Proposed Rule, Insurance Provisions


November 23rd, 2014

On November 21, 2014, the Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services released its proposed Benefits and Payment Parameters (BPP) RulePart I of this post examined the benefit provisions of this proposed rule. This post will analyze the parts of the rule that deal with the insurance market reforms; the reinsurance, risk adjustment, and risk corridor programs; health insurance rate review; and the individual and SHOP exchanges.

New Definitions Of ‘Plan’ And ‘State’

The regulation begins with a modified definition of the term “plan.”  The terms “plan” is important in the ACA regulations.  A plan has been defined, with respect to a health insurer, as the combination of a benefit package, metal tier, and service area.  The new definition adds to this combination cost-sharing structure and provider network, so that plans that differ in their cost-sharing structure (deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance) or provider networks are different plans, even if they are offered at the same metal tier.  This definition becomes important, for example, in determining whether a plan offered outside the exchange is the same as a qualified health plan (QHP) offered in the exchange and can thus participate in the risk corridor program.  The proposed regulations later propose that the unreasonable rate review regulation applies at the plan level.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: 2016 Benefit And Payment Parameters Proposed Rule, Consumer Provisions; Hardship Exemptions


November 22nd, 2014

On November 15, 2014, the marketplaces reopened for 2015.  Anecdotal reports indicate that in most places enrollment and reenrollment are running smoothly.  But the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is looking forward to 2016.  On November 21 CMS published its massive 2016 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (BPP) Proposed Rule  with accompanying fact sheet.  It also published the draft 2016 actuarial value calculator and draft actuarial value calculator methodology for 2016.  Finally, CMS published a guidance on hardship exemptions for certain individuals.

Not to be outdone, the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service released its final regulation on Minimum Essential Coverage and other Rules Regarding the Shared Responsibility Payment for Individuals, together with a Notice regarding Individual Shared Responsibility Payment Hardship Exemptions that May be Claimed on a Federal Income Tax Return Without Obtaining a Hardship Exemption Certificate from the Marketplace and a Revenue Procedure setting out indexed adjusted percentages of income that will be used for determining the level of contributions expected of individuals before premium tax credits become available, the affordability threshold for the shared responsibility payments unaffordability exemption, and the threshold for determining whether employer coverage is affordable for purposes of determining eligibility for tax credits.

Finally, the Office of Personnel Management released a lengthy proposed rule proposing modifications in the multi-state plan program.  These rules, proposed rules, and guidances will be addressed in a series of posts over the next several days.  This post will address primarily the consumer-facing provisions of the BPP proposed rule, focusing on changes in benefits.  A second post will follow, discussing the provisions of the rule more relevant to insurers, such as proposed changes in the reinsurance, risk adjustment, and risk corridor rules.  A final post will discuss the IRS rule, which is primarily a finalization of proposals and guidances already made public, and the OPM multi-state plan rule.

Read the rest of this entry »

How Consumers Might Game The 90-Day Grace Period And What Can Be Done About It


November 17th, 2014

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), individuals receiving a federal subsidy are entitled to a three-month premium nonpayment grace period. As long as such an individual has paid at least the first month’s premium of the year, in any subsequent month the individual has three months to make the premium payment before coverage is terminated.

The grace period has obvious benefits for consumers, yet as a recent Health Affairs Health Policy Brief describes, this provision of the law has created significant apprehension among doctors and other health care providers who worry they will go unpaid when coverage is retroactively terminated for their patients. Unfortunately, as we explain here, this provision could have even broader adverse implications for the health care system.

The grace period law could encourage subsidized individuals to regularly pay only nine months of premiums and receive, in effect, twelve months of coverage. Should this gaming become widespread it could increase premiums (perhaps by as much as several percentage points) for everyone who purchases coverage in the individual (non-group) exchanges.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Setting The Stage For 2015 Open Enrollment


November 16th, 2014

On November 15, 2014, the Affordable Care Act marketplaces reopened for 2015 enrollment, the second year of ACA coverage.  On November 14, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of Personnel Management released guidance and reports laying the groundwork for the second year.  This post covers these and notes briefly a couple of ACA court decisions that also came down on November 14.

Plan data release.  CMS released a number of data files containing information on plans available on the marketplaces for 2015 and their rates.  First, the release includes “landscape files” including plans available by county along with premium and cost-sharing data for selected scenarios and services for the 2015 plan year for the federally facilitated marketplace and federally facilitated SHOP.

Read the rest of this entry »

Risk And Reform Of Long-Term Care


November 14th, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is part of a series of several posts stemming from presentations given at “The Law of Medicare and Medicaid at Fifty,” a conference held at Yale Law School on November 6 and 7.

The 50th Anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid offers an opportunity to reflect on how U.S. social policy has conceived of the problem of long-term care.

Social insurance programs aim to create greater security—typically financial security—for American families (See Note 1). Programs for long-term care, however, have had mixed results. The most recent attempt at reform, which Ted Kennedy ushered through as a part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), called the CLASS Act, was actuarially unsound and later repealed. Medicare and especially Medicaid, the two primary government programs to address long-term care needs, are criticized for failing to meet the needs of people with a disability or illness, who need long-term services or supports. These critiques are valid.

Even more troublesome, however, long-term care policy, especially in its most recent evolution toward home-based care, has intensified a second type of insecurity for Americans. This insecurity arises when someone becomes responsible for the long-term care of a loved one. In a longer forthcoming article, I argue that this insecurity—which I call “next-friend risk”—poses a serious threat to Americans and needs to be addressed. (I borrow the phrase next friend from a legal term for a person who in litigation represents someone with a disability who is otherwise unable to represent him or herself. Although not a legal guardian, the next friend protects the interests of an incompetent person.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Reforming Medicare: What Does The Public Want?


November 13th, 2014

Is Medicare adequately meeting the needs of seniors, or are there ways that its core attributes could be improved? Numerous elected officials, policymakers, and other thought leaders have offered perspectives on ways to change the program. Few efforts, however, have been directed at understanding how the public—given accurate information, a variety of options, and a valid structure for weighing the pros and cons—would change Medicare’s basic design.

The MedCHAT Project

Recently, the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution co-hosted a briefing on the results of a California project that did just that. The “MedCHAT” project, sponsored by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Healthcare Decisions, asked 800 residents—the lay public, as well as health care professionals and community leaders—to consider Medicare’s current benefits and decide if those should be changed. Respondents represented the full spectrum of age, race, ethnicity, education, and income level.

Using an interactive, computer-based system, participants were asked to respond as “social decisionmakers;” they were tasked with making Medicare more responsive to the needs of current and future generations without imposing a greater cost burden on the country. The computer-based CHAT (“Choosing All Together”) program uses actuarial estimates to show the relative costs of health care benefits, allowing participants to make trade-offs with an understanding of the fiscal impact each benefit has on the program.

Read the rest of this entry »

High Quality, Affordable Care: Making The Case For Smarter Networks


November 13th, 2014

Narrow networks are one means health insurance plans have used to mitigate increases in health insurance premiums. These networks have become more prevalent since the expansion of coverage brought about by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But these narrow networks have given rise to complaints that consumers are being denied access to, and choice of, providers. These complaints are causing policymakers to consider, and in some cases adopt, new laws and regulations on network adequacy.

In the following blog post, I argue that policymakers should consider that there are different types of narrow networks and should be careful not to adopt policies that inhibit new contractual arrangements among payers, providers, and hospitals, such as Accountable Care Organizations, which hold the promise of better quality care at lower cost. At the same time, issuers must provide accurate and current information on which hospitals and providers are in the network and are accepting new patients, and must make the case that smarter networks can lead to better outcomes at lower cost.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Short-Term And Long-Term Outlook Of Drug Coupons


November 12th, 2014

In the October 2014 Health Affairs article, “Specialty Drug Coupons Lower Out-Of-Pocket Costs And May Improve Adherence At The Risk Of Increasing Premiums,” Catherine Starner and coauthors explore the relationship between drug coupons and specialty drugs. Specialty drugs, primarily injectables and biologics, are costly drugs used to treat complicated, chronic conditions that typically require special handling, administration, and monitoring. Starner et al. report that specialty drugs have an average monthly cost to patients and payers of about $3,500.

In their innovative study, Starner et al. find that nearly half of the patients in their sample who were prescribed specialty drugs used personal drug coupons to reduce their personal financial responsibilities. Coupons come in the form of maximum copay and monthly savings cards, and can be accessed from the brand-name manufacturer’s website, printed out, and cashed in at the pharmacy.

Manufacturers promote drug coupons as supplementary patient assistance programs that can fill gaps in insurance coverage by reducing individual patients’ responsibilities for out-of-pocket health care costs related to high-cost specialty drugs or other pharmaceutical products. For example, patients taking etanercept (Enbrel), an expensive biologic specialty drug indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, can receive savings via the Enbrel Support plan, which reduces the monthly co-pay to $0 for the first six months and $10 per month thereafter.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: New HHS 2015 Marketplace Enrollment Estimates


November 11th, 2014

On November 10, 2014, the HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) released an estimate of “How Many Individuals Might Have Marketplace Coverage After the 2015 Open Enrollment Period.”  ASPE estimates that 9.1 to 9.9 million will be enrolled, substantially lower than the 13 million enrollee estimate the Congressional Budget Office issued in the Spring of 2014.

Both the ASPE and CBO estimates see the marketplaces as eventually covering 24 to 25 million people.  But while CBO projected that the marketplaces would reach this number in 3 years, ASPE believes that a 4 to 5 year ramp-up period is more realistic based on the launch experience of other programs, like Medicaid and CHIP.

Examining the numbers.  The marketplaces enrolled 8.1 million individuals during the 2014 open enrollment period.  The ASPE brief states that 7.1 million were still enrolled as of October of 2014.  It is not clear whether or not this number includes 112,000 individuals that HHS recently announced have been dropped from the marketplaces because they failed adequately to document their immigration or citizenship status.  HHS has also announced that another 105,000 individuals will have their financial eligibility determined on data available to HHS (in most instances 2012 tax returns), because they failed to document the income levels they claimed on their applications.  These individuals will not lose coverage, but may receive smaller tax credits.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Insurance Without An Annual Expiration Date? A Case For Exchange-Based Long-Term Policies


November 10th, 2014

Today, consumers make decisions every year about whether to renew or change health plans. Exchange-based multi-year plans would have to overcome significant obstacles before they become reality, but they hold the potential for helping the United States move toward goals of a healthier society and a more efficient health care system.

Since the launch of the federal and state health insurance exchanges in October 2013, set up to facilitate the purchase of insurance in line with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), millions of Americans have obtained coverage. In addition, several large employers, such as Sears and Walgreens, have announced that they will stop offering coverage and instead provide a defined contribution for their employees to purchase coverage on an exchange.

The growing role of exchanges, their price transparency, and the increasing share of the cost of coverage borne by enrollees is likely to make consumers pay increased attention to price. Price-sensitive buyers could encourage competition and thus efficiency. But there might be unintended consequences. Consumers might deliberately choose low-cost plans with limited benefits when they are healthy, knowing that the ACA allows them to purchase a more generous plan should they develop a chronic disease. The possibility of changing health plans when becoming sick might exacerbate the self-selection problem in the insurance market because the public exchanges allow only limited risk adjustment based on such factors as age, family composition, rating area, and tobacco use.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Supreme Court Will Review Tax Credits In Federal Exchanges


November 7th, 2014

On November 7, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari (review) in King v. Burwell, one of the cases involving the question of whether federally-facilitated marketplaces can grant premium tax credits.  The Fourth Circuit in King had upheld the Internal Revenue Service rule allowing FFMs to grant premium tax credits.  A panel of the District of Columbia Circuit had decided the same day that only state-operated exchanges could grant tax credits; however, that decision was vacated by the D.C. Circuit when it decided to rehear the case as a whole, so at the time the Supreme Court accepted certiorari, King was the only circuit court decision in effect, and that upholding the rule.

The challenge to the IRS rule is based on the wording of the provision of the ACA that authorizes premium tax credits, which refers to enrollment “in through an Exchange established by the State.”  The plaintiffs in King argue that this means that only state-operated exchanges can grant premium tax credits.

The government responds that this is an incorrect reading of the statute, which recognizes FFMs as the state-established exchange in states that elect not to establish a state exchange.  This is certainly the way that the members of Congress who wrote the legislation and the states that elected not to operate their own exchange understood the legislation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Care Policy After The Mid-Term Elections


November 7th, 2014

As President Obama said in his post-election news conference, Republicans had a good night on November 4. They increased their majority in the House to a level not seen since the 1920s and may hold as many as 250 seats in the lower chamber. In the Senate, Republicans defeated at least three incumbent Democratic Senators, and are likely to defeat two more when all of the voting and counting is over.

The most likely scenario is that the GOP will hold 54 seats in the Senate come January — an increase of nine seats from the current Congress. It is noteworthy that half of the Democratic Senators who voted to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA) nearly five years ago will no longer be in the Senate in 2015. Despite some commentary to the contrary, the ACA was a big issue in the election. To a person, the successful GOP Senate candidates ran strongly against the ACA. In the middle of October, anti-ACA ads were among the most frequently-aired political advertisements from Republican Senate candidates. By and large, these candidates won their races.

The conventional wisdom is that the ACA, now heading into its second year of full-scale implementation, cannot be rolled back in any substantial way at this point. That’s certainly the view of major corporate players and the health care industry. But it is decidedly not the view of the newly-elected Republican members of the House and Senate, or their constituents. They believe voters sent them to Washington to do their best to push back against the perceived excesses of the ACA and to begin replacing it with a reform plan that is less expensive, less damaging to the economy, and less reliant on federal regulation and control.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tax Filing And The ACA: Helping Americans Meet The Challenge


November 7th, 2014

Tim Jost’s post of September 21, 2014 expressed concern about the problems that Americans who are uninsured or who have received or qualify for premium tax credits will face in filing their taxes for 2014.  Those who are not otherwise insured and who wish to claim an exemption from the shared responsibility penalty will have to file tax form 8965.  Those who received advance premium tax credits during 2014 will have to file a form 8962, as will those who did not receive advance premium tax credits but who wish to claim premium tax credits on their tax return.  Tax filers who fail to reconcile their tax credits for 2014 cannot claim tax credits for subsequent years.

Individuals who did not have coverage at the beginning of 2014, but purchased coverage at some point in the year through the marketplaces, may need to file both forms.  For example, victims of domestic violence or spousal abandonment were granted a special enrollment period part of the way through 2014 and will have to file an 8965 for the months they were uninsured before they enrolled and an 8962 for months after they enrolled.

This post offers suggestions as to how the Internal Revenue Service and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the two agencies that oversee the shared responsibility and premium tax credit programs, might mitigate the problems that tax filers may face in filing their taxes for 2014.

Read the rest of this entry »

Social Insurance Is Missing A Piece: Medicare, Medicaid, And Long-term Care


November 6th, 2014

Editor’s note: This is the first of several periodic posts stemming from presentations to be given at “The Law of Medicare and Medicaid at Fifty,” a conference that will be held at Yale Law School on November 6 and 7. The issues covered in this post and in Professor Feder’s presentation at the conference will be more fully treated in Feder J. “The Missing Piece:  Medicare, Medicaid and Long-Term Care,” in Cohen AB, Colby DC, Wailoo KA, Zelizer JE, eds. Medicare and Medicaid at 50: America’s Entitlement Programs in the Age of Affordable Care. New York: Oxford, 2015.

Medicare and Medicaid are partners in providing health insurance protection to older people and people with disabilities. But when it comes to helping the very same people with long-term care—assistance with the basic tasks of daily life (like bathing, eating and toileting)—no such partnership exists.  Instead, there’s a gaping hole in protection that leaves people who need care, along with their families, at risk of catastrophe.

That hole is not an accident.  From Medicare’s inception, long-term care was explicitly excluded from its social insurance benefits, despite the close tie of many long-term care needs to medical conditions.  With some short-lived lapses, Medicare rules have restricted the program’s benefits to avoid financing long-term care, even as it has overpaid long-term care providers for medically-related “post-acute” services. Ironically, Medicare has fueled growth in expenditures on long-term care providers without actually covering long-term care.

Read the rest of this entry »

An Emerging Consensus: Medicare Advantage Is Working And Can Deliver Meaningful Reform


November 6th, 2014

Since enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, much of the attention in the policy community has been on modernizing Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service (FFS) program.  Through Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), larger “bundles” of payments to fee-for-service providers for episodes of care, and tests of pay-for-performance models, the hope is that the traditional Medicare model can be remade through sheer force of bureaucratic will.  The stated intent is to find a way to pay for value, not volume.

These efforts may or may not bear much fruit, but, over the longer term, it’s not likely to matter much.  That’s because a more important transformation of Medicare is already well underway and is occurring despite more resistance than assistance from the program’s bureaucracy.  According to the 2014 Medicare Trustees’ report, enrollment in Medicare Advantage – the private plan option in Medicare — has been surging for a decade.  In 2005 there were 5.8 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans — 13.6 percent of total enrollment in the program.  Today, there are 16.2 million beneficiaries in MA plans, or 30 percent of program enrollment. (See Table IV.C1)  In addition, the Medicare drug benefit, which constitutes about 12 percent of total program spending, is delivered entirely through private plans. (See Table II.B1)

As MA enrollment has surged, so has recognition of its improved value.  A recent, comprehensive review of the evidence conducted by Joseph Newhouse and Thomas McGuire of Harvard University makes a compelling case that MA plans are providing higher value services at less societal cost than the traditional FFS program.  Based on their findings, Newhouse and McGuire argue for policies that would provide incentives for even more beneficiaries to enroll in MA plans in the future.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Payment Reform Landscape: Benefit And Network Design Strategies To Complement Payment Reform


November 4th, 2014

For the past ten months on Health Affairs Blog, we’ve been discussing the evidence for different models of payment reform, examining everything from pay for performance to nonpayment. But no discussion of payment reform is complete without addressing benefit and network designs and how they can help or hinder various payment reforms.  When the right payment method is paired with the right benefit and/or network design, they can work together to help reduce costs and improve care.  There are a number of payment approaches that pair well with specific benefit and network design strategies to yield higher-quality, lower-cost care. Below we discuss a few of these effective pairings.

But before we get into the specifics, why it is important to motivate providers to deliver and patients to seek higher-value care?  Health care providers may not only respond to direct financial incentives, but they are also likely to respond to knowing information about their performance is being put in front of prospective and current patients.  They also may be more willing to accept new forms of payment if acceptance means payers will encourage more patients to seek their care.

On the flip side, patients are unlikely to know how their providers are paid.  But if motivated (financially and otherwise), patients may act on meaningful distinctions in price and quality by choosing higher-value providers, saving money for themselves and whoever else is footing the bill for their care.

Read the rest of this entry »

Adult Conversation On High-Priced Drugs? Don’t Hold Your Breath (But Hang In There) …


October 27th, 2014

The benevolent identity of the health care enterprise tends to moderate disagreements and keep them under a big tent of shared goals. In the case of very high prices for powerful new drugs, however, the commons gets stretched painfully thin. Drug companies which see themselves as pioneers are accused of being merely greedy. Cost-conscious payers and regulators are impugned for depriving patients of life-conserving treatment breakthroughs. A divisive political undercurrent often threatens to obtrude. Altogether, a tough environment for rational policy assessment.

Credit is due, accordingly, to the Brookings Institution, for putting a wide array of views on display at its October 1 forum on “the cost and value of biomedical innovation,” which was jointly sponsored by the Schaeffer Center at the University of Southern California. With the head of Gilead Sciences at one pole of the discussion and a leading generics industry attorney at the other, the discussion didn’t lack for strongly-held views, strongly stated.

But the tone was civil, a lot of useful information was exchanged, and the audience went away carrying a meta-message about the importance of maintaining an “adult conversation” on a subject of such obvious importance and difficulty.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: The Qualified Health Plan Federal Exchange Participation Agreement And More


October 21st, 2014

CMS continues to put the pieces into place that are needed for the launch of the 2015 coverage year.  On October 16, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released at its REGTAP.info website the certification agreement and privacy and security agreement that qualified health plan (QHP) insurers must sign with CMS to access the federally facilitated exchange (FFE), the federally facilitated SHOP (FF-SHOP), and CMS Data Services Hub.  The agreement focuses primarily on obligations that the QHP insurer undertakes to protect personally identifiable information and to ensure secure communications with CMS, although it also addresses the effective date and termination of the agreement and a few other issues.  Most of the terms of the agreement are unremarkable, and this post will only comment on a few.

QHP insurers undertake under the agreement to protect personally identifiable information and to ensure secure communications with CMS in conformity with applicable laws, regulations, and standards.  They must also ensure that their contractors and downstream entities comply with these requirements.  QHP insurers agree to report any personally identifiable information incidents or breaches to CMS within 72 to 96 hours.  This is a far cry from the one-hour breach reporting requirement proposed by CMS last year but never finalized, but perhaps recognizes the difficult of identifying and assessing a security breach.

The agreement expressly recognizes that QHP insurers have developed their products based on the assumption that advance premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments will be available through the marketplace and that QHP insurers could have cause to terminate the agreement if this assumption ceases to be valid.  This could be interpreted as a reference to the Halbig/King litigation which currently threatens the availability of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments through the FFE, but could also have been included in recognition of the likely Republican takeover of the Senate and the possibility that the Republicans may accomplish through budget reconciliation or otherwise their longstanding goal of repealing the ACA.  As the agreement is renewable from year to year, this clause may contemplate contingencies in the indefinite as well as the near future

Read the rest of this entry »

Enrolling College Students In Health Insurance: Lessons From California (Part 2)


October 21st, 2014

Editor’s note: As we approach the beginning of the second open enrollment period under the Affordable Care Act, Walter Zelman describes an effort he led during last year’s initial open enrollment period to enroll students in the California State University (CSU) system in coverage. Part 1 of this post provided background on the CSU system and the enrollment effort, the CSU Health Insurance Education Project, as well as a discussion of what worked well. Part 2, below, addresses what worked less well, as well as project results, lessons and policy implications, and next steps.

In addition to Zelman, authors of this post include Wendy Lee, now in a Masters of Public Health Program at Johns Hopkins; Natasha Buransombati, now in a graduate program in Nursing and Public Health at the University of Seattle in Washington; and Carla Bracamonte, now in an MPH program at California State University, Fullerton. As CSU students, Lee and Buransombati served as regional coordinators for HIEP and Bracamonte served as a coordinator, CSU Los Angeles.

IV.  What Worked Less Well

Assessments as to what did not work must be rendered with caution. In most cases lack of success may have been due to lack of emphasis or time, to the relative inexperience of student educators, or the failure of project leaders to follow-up aggressively with CSU or administrative personnel.

Campus groups, social media, and web pages

Most striking and disappointing, was the difficulty in engaging campus groups. Many seemed supportive of the mission. But, in the end, most were unable to commit time and resources to the project, even after repeated engagement by project representatives. Most campus groups had specific goals and agendas, and promoting insurance coverage to students was not one of them. More time or resources might have produced more campus organization support, but these were not available.

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.