Blog Home

Archive for the 'Insurance' Category




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 »

Enrolling College Students In Health Insurance: Lessons From California (Part 1)


October 20th, 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 system in coverage. Part 1 below provides background on the CSU system and the enrollment effort, the CSU Health Insurance Education Project, as well as a discussion of what went well. Part 2, which will appear tomorrow, addresses what did not go so 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.

The California State University (CSU) system is the largest public university system in the nation, as well as one of the most diverse. The CSU Health Insurance Education Project (HIEP) received a $1.25 million grant to educate students in the CSU system about the Affordable Care Act and health coverage options through California’s new marketplace, Covered California. A pre-open enrollment, multi-campus poll found that approximately 25-30 percent of CSU students were uninsured, primarily because they could not afford insurance.

The project placed student educators on the CSU’s 15 largest campus. Over a seven-month period they gave approximately 1500 classroom presentations, and conducted 70 forums and 300 enrollment events. University administrators sent out over 1 million emails to CSU students. Project strategy emphasized a focus on affordability, the need for insurance (accidents happen), and the simplicity of the enrollment process.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Policy Brief: The Ninety-Day Grace Period


October 17th, 2014

A new Health Policy Brief from Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) examines the ninety-day grace period, a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Of the eight million people who enrolled in the insurance Marketplaces between October 2013 and March 2014, 85 percent received an advance premium tax credit. This provision allows a three-month grace period for nonpayment of insurance premiums for this group of consumers–and this group only–if they have previously paid at least one month’s full premium in that benefit year.

This grace period allows these new enrollees continuity of care, preventing them from shifting or “churning” in and out of coverage for nonpayment. Health care providers, however, have expressed concerns that this provision and the way the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has implemented it could expose them to considerable financial risk. This Health Policy Brief focuses on how this provision is being implemented and the concerns from the provider community.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Renewing Coverage For 2015


October 16th, 2014

On October 15, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced, with a month to go before the 2015 open enrollment begins on November 15, that it is beginning to send out notices to enrollees in the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM), explaining to them how to renew their coverage for 2015.

CMS is urging consumers to come back to the marketplace as it opens on November 15 to update their 2015 application and to make sure they are enrolled in the qualified health plan (QHP) that best meets their financial situation and health needs for 2015. The procedure outlined in the announcement is that set out in the FFM redetermination guidance issued in June. State-operated exchanges are also, presumably, beginning to inform their enrollees regarding their own 2015 redetermination processes.

Redetermination Notice

FFM Consumers will receive one of six notices. Consumers who visited the marketplace in 2014 and were determined eligible for coverage but who did not enroll, are being sent a notice urging them to return to the marketplace and enroll when the open enrollment period begins. Consumers who enrolled for 2014 but have not been receiving tax credits either because they were not eligible, did not apply, or were determined eligible for tax credits but declined assistance, are urged to return to the marketplace and reenroll in coverage.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Reference Pricing And Network Adequacy


October 12th, 2014

On October 10, 2014, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services issued a frequently asked question (FAQ) regarding the use of reference-based pricing in non-grandfathered large group employer plans.  Although the issue the FAQ addresses specifically is the use of reference pricing, the FAQ is remarkable insofar as it is the first departmental guidance that I am aware of that addresses the use of networks by self-insured ERISA plans.

Network adequacy is an issue that has long been addressed in the nongroup and insured group market in many states by state insurance law.  The ACA also requires qualified health plans, and arguably any individual and small group plan subject to the essential health benefits requirements, to have adequate provider networks.  Special rules implementing ACA section 2719A of the ACA limit cost-sharing for out-of-network coverage for emergency services.

The departments also stated in an earlier FAQ that cost sharing cannot be applied by any non-grandfathered health plan for preventive services provided by out-of-network providers if the services are not available in network.   But I am unaware of the departments otherwise attempting previously to regulate group health plan network requirements, at least under the ACA.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Judge Rules Against Premium Tax Credits In ACA Federal Exchanges (Updated)


September 30th, 2014

On September 30, 2014, Judge Ronald White of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma decided in Pruitt v. Burwell and Lew that the Affordable Care Act does not authorize the federally exchanges to issue premium tax credits.  He held that the Internal Revenue Service rule that provided the contrary is invalid.  Judge White’s decision followed the opinion of the majority of a panel of the District of Columbia circuit’s decision in Halbig v. Burwell, although the judgment in that case has been vacated pending a rehearing of the case by the full D.C. Circuit.  His decision was contrary to the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the IRS rule in King v. Burwell.  The district courts in both Halbig and King had upheld the IRS rule.

The Pruitt case has a long and circuitous history.  It was originally filed by Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt in 2011 as an individual mandate challenge.  After the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in 2012, Attorney General Pruitt amended his complaint to instead challenge the ability of the federally facilitated exchanges to issue premium tax credits.  In an earlier ruling, Judge White refused to allow Oklahoma to sue on its own behalf as a state (a ruling that Judge White did not change in this decision), but concluded that it might have standing to proceed as a large employer.

In his September 30 ruling, Judge White concluded that Oklahoma did in fact have standing to sue as a large employer.  Under the ACA’s employer responsibility provisions, a large employer that does not offer its employees affordable and adequate coverage can be subject to a tax penalty if one or more of its employees receives premium tax credits through the exchange.  If the federally facilitated exchange, which is the ACA exchange in Oklahoma, is unable to grant premium tax credits, Oklahoma, which is a large employer, cannot be subject to a penalty if it fails to offer coverage to its employees.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Payment Reform Landscape: Value-Oriented Payment Jumps, And Yet …


September 30th, 2014

Today, Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR) unveiled some potentially exciting news: Our 2014 National Scorecard on Payment Reform tells us 40 percent of commercial sector payments to doctors and hospitals now flow through value-oriented payment methods, defined as payment methods designed to improve quality and reduce waste.  This is a dramatic increase since 2013 when the figure was just 11 percent.

Traditional fee-for-service, where we pay for every test and procedure regardless of its value, may rapidly be becoming a relic.  While the Scorecard findings are not wholly representative of health plans across the United States, they are directionally sound and allow us to measure progress toward value-oriented payment in the commercial sector.  (Scorecard findings are based on data representing almost 65 percent of commercial health plans across the country.)

On the face of it, this is thrilling news for CPR, especially since our organizational goal is that at least 20 percent of payments to doctors and hospitals will flow through methods proven to improve value by the year 2020.  But we are not closing up shop just yet.  The proliferation of value-based payment arrangements only matters if they succeed at reducing costs and improving the quality of care. And for many value-oriented payment models, we still don’t have the evidence.

We also remain a bit circumspect because only about half of the value-oriented payments (out of that 40 percent figure) put providers at some financial risk if they fail to improve care or spend over budget.  To employers and others helping to foot the bill for health care, many new payment methods often feel like “cost plus arrangements.”  Instead, purchasers would like to see risk sharing across payers and providers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Excepted Benefits Final Rule


September 29th, 2014

Congress adopted Title I of the Affordable Care Act to increase access to health coverage for individuals by reforming employer group health coverage and health insurance offered to individuals and groups, requiring large employers to offer their employees affordable minimum health coverage or pay a penalty, imposing a penalty on individuals who can afford health coverage but fail to obtain it, and offering advance premium tax credits through the exchanges to individuals who cannot otherwise afford to purchase health coverage.

Coverage has long been available both through groups and for individuals that provides some health-related benefits but is neither a group health plan nor insured health coverage, as those terms are defined in the ACA.  These benefits were originally labeled by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 as “excepted benefits,” because they are excepted from the forms of benefits regulated initially by HIPAA and now by the ACA.

On September 26, 2014 the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“the agencies”) issued regulations expanding access to excepted benefits through insured and self-insured groups.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Latest Health Wonk Review


September 26th, 2014

At Healthcare Lighthouse, Billy Wynne provides this week’s “Thank God It’s Recess” edition of the Health Wonk Review. Billy give us a nice collection of posts, including a Health Affairs Blog post on health insurance reform proposals by Ari Friedman and Siyabonga Ndwandwe.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Affairs Web First: CHIP Eligibility Finds Decrease In Uninsurance In Some States


September 24th, 2014

As part of the 2009 reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), states were provided with new resources and options to help reduce uninsurance rates among children. These included: expanded eligibility guidelines; simplified enrollment and renewal procedures; and funding for outreach campaigns. Fifteen states chose to raise their CHIP income eligibility thresholds.

In one of the first studies to analyze the impact of these recent CHIP expansions on the program’s enrollment, published today as a Web First by Health Affairs, authors Ian Goldstein, Deliana Kostova, Jennifer Foltz, and Genevieve Kenney found that “expansion states” saw a 1.1-percentage-point reduction in uninsurance among newly eligible children, cutting this group’s uninsurance rate by nearly 15 percent. The study also discovered that public coverage increased by 2.9 percentage points, revealing a shift among some of these families away from private insurance, and found variable effects across states.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Complicated ACA Tax Forms Could Cause Problems


September 21st, 2014

In a few months, millions of Americans will be filing either form 8962 to reconcile the advance premium tax credit they received with the tax credit they were actually due, or form 8965 because they owe a tax under the shared responsibility (individual mandate) provision of the Affordable Care Act or claim an exemption from that requirement.

By the close of open enrollment in April, 6.7 million Americans had chosen a qualified health plan with premium tax credits,  and many more have since enrolled in a QHP through a special enrollment period and received tax credits.  Each of them will need to file a form 8962.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 30 million Americans are potentially subject to the shared responsibility requirement, and that 23 million of them may qualify for an exemption.  The 7 million individuals who owe the penalty will have to file a form 8965, as will most of the 23 million who claim an exemption.

On September 15, 2014 the Internal Revenue Service released draft instructions for form 8965.  On September 17, 2014, the IRS released draft instructions for form 8962.  It is difficult to overstate how complicated these instructions are.  The tax credit and individual responsibility provisions of the ACA were complicated to begin with, but have become ever more complex as new exceptions and special rules have been created as implementation of the legislation has proceeded.  Many of the mostly low income Americans who will be completing these forms are marginally literate, at least in English, and have been accustomed to filing very simple tax forms like the 1040-EZ (which cannot be used by an individual claiming a tax credit) or perhaps not to filing taxes at all.  They are likely to be confused, frustrated, even angry, and certainly bewildered, completing these forms.  It is to be hoped that most of them will be assisted by well-trained tax preparers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Relative Value Health Insurance And Pay For Performance For Insurers: Complements, Not Substitutes


September 19th, 2014

Background

The quest for value dominates contemporary health policy.  Value, properly defined, is not about cost-savings but about the balance of costs and health benefits — improving the average cost-effectiveness of health interventions.  In choosing which care is funded, insurers are a crucial but commonly neglected driver of health system value.

Insurers can increase health system value by covering fewer cost-ineffective interventions or covering more cost-effective interventions.  Perhaps the earliest attempt to reform insurance, managed care, attempted to pursue both goals, but by the time it was implemented it widely focused (or was perceived to focus) on cost-containment.

A recent insurance reform proposal, known as Relative Value Health Insurance (RVHI), received considerable attention, for instance, in The Upshot, The Incidental Economist, and Forbes.  RVHI enables insurers to reduce their contractual obligation to cover “usual and customary” care.  This and similar earlier proposals rely on the insurers’ natural incentive to cut costs.  Less well-covered, however, are proposals to alter the very incentives of insurers to improve health, which we will call “pay-for-performance-for-insurers” (P4P4I).

Read the rest of this entry »

New Health Policy Brief: Employee Choice


September 18th, 2014

A new Health Policy Brief from Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) looks at health coverage choice for employees of small businesses. Unlike large organizations, small businesses have been less likely to provide comprehensive health insurance or a choice of plans, and their employees are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured.

To address this insurance gap, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) created the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplaces in each state. (Note: The SHOP exchange was the subject of an earlier Health Policy Brief.) These Marketplaces (eighteen run by state exchanges, thirty-three by the federal government) will provide “one stop shopping,” for small businesses to compare health plans and enroll their employees.

To make SHOP Marketplaces more attractive to small businesses, the ACA required SHOP Marketplaces to offer a feature known as employee choice, in which employers can offer their employees a choice from multiple health insurance plans. While the majority of state-based SHOP Marketplaces have chosen to offer access to multiple plans, employee choice will not be mandatory until 2016. This Health Policy Brief examines the issue of employee choice, the status of its implementation, and whether the concept is successfully attracting more small businesses to offer coverage through SHOP Marketplaces.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reference Pricing And Network Adequacy Standards: Conflict Or Concord?


September 18th, 2014

With benefit designs and enrollee cost-sharing increasingly standardized across health plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), one of the remaining levers plans have to differentiate themselves—and to control premiums—is the size of their provider networks. Regulators have been caught in a crossfire between advocates of narrow networks who say they promote quality and keep prices down, and those who feel narrow networks could constrain access to necessary services.

Unfortunately, recent federal guidance – addressing, among other related items, the issue of “reference pricing” — blurs the distinction between in-network and out-of-network providers and may make it more difficult for regulators and consumers to understand the effective “size” of a particular network.

This confusion could undermine the goal of improving transparency in consumers’ health care choices and make it difficult for consumers to use prices in choosing providers. More troubling, expanded use of “reference pricing” under the guidance could leave patients paying unexpectedly large out-of-pocket amounts for services provided by ostensibly in-network providers.

Below, we characterize reference pricing as a “sub-network” contracting strategy, and we describe some of the implications of reference pricing and the guidance for consumers, regulators, plans, and providers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Resolving Income-Related Data Inconsistencies (Updated)


September 16th, 2014

On September 15, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a second deadline in its efforts to resolve data inconsistencies remaining from the 2014 open enrollment period.  This second deadline is for the submission of documentation to resolve income inconsistencies for exchange enrollees.  The first deadline was announced in August, when CMS sent final letters to about 310,000 federal marketplace (exchange) enrollees whose enrollments raised citizenship or legal-immigrant status issues, informing them that they must provide verification documents by September 5 or be terminated from coverage as of September 30.

CMS received hundreds of thousands of documents in response to the August request, reducing the number of individuals with citizenship and immigration data-matching issues from 966,000 as of May 31 to 115,000 as of September 14.  These individuals will be terminated as of September 30, 2014, but under the revised bulletin 11, they will be reinstated retroactively if they subsequently produce the documents needed to verify their citizenship or legal alien status. They may also purchase insurance outside the exchange.  Insurers are legally required to offer coverage to individuals who reside in their service area, regardless of citizenship or alien status.

Under the procedure announced on September 15, CMS is sending final notices to individuals enrolled through the federally facilitated exchange who still have income-related data-matching issues, informing them that they must send required information to verify their income as of September 30, 2014 or their premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments will be modified to reflect information reflected in data sources otherwise available to CMS.  For example, if an enrollee’s 2012 tax return reported income higher than that reported by the enrollee on his or her application for advance premium tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, and the enrollee failed to provide verification of the claimed income, the enrollee’s premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments would be modified as of November 1 in accordance with the income reflected in the tax return.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Latest Health Wonk Review


September 12th, 2014

At Health Business Blog, David Williams is not ashamed to be a wonk in his September 11 edition of the Health Wonk Review. David highlights many great posts, including “The 125 Percent Solution,” suggested by Jonathan Skinner, Elliott Fisher, and James Weinstein on Health Affairs Blog, which would give consumers and insurers the option of paying 125 percent of the Medicare price for any health care service.

Read the rest of this entry »

ACOs, Bundled Payment Lead Health Affairs Blog August Most-Read List


September 12th, 2014

Posts on payment and delivery reform head the Health Affairs Blog top-fifteen list for August. Suzanne Delbanco and David Lansky’s post on accountable care organizations was the most-read post, followed by Tom Williams and Jill Yegian’s post on bundled payment, written in response to an article published in the August issue of Health Affairs.

Next is Health Affairs’ Editor-in-Chief Alan Weil’s post on the five engagements that will define the future of health, drawn from his keynote presentation at the 2014 Colorado Health Symposium. This is followed by Rosemarie Day and coauthors’ post on the private health insurance exchange system.

The full list is below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Birth Control Pills Should Be Available Over The Counter, But That’s No Substitute For Contraceptive Coverage


September 10th, 2014

In recent weeks, some opponents of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage guarantee have promoted the idea that oral contraceptive pills should be available to adult women without a prescription. Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for example, recently introduced the so-called Preserving Religious Freedom and a Woman’s Access to Contraception Act, a bill that would urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to study whether to make contraceptives over the counter (OTC) — though for adults only.

Making birth control pills available over the counter, if done right, would meaningfully improve access for some groups of women. However, such a change is no substitute for public and private insurance coverage of contraceptives — let alone justification for rolling back coverage of all contraceptive methods and related services for the millions of women who currently have it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.