Archive for the ‘california health insurance’ Category

« Older Entries

Health Insurance Exchange & Reform Updates

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

Congress returns from a two-week recess Monday, and the federal budget is again expected to quickly become the focus of attention. Just prior to recess, the House passed a budget resolution that proposes to cut the deficit with significant changes to Medicare and Medicare. The latter would essentially be transformed into a voucher program, and some members of the House have gotten an earful from constituents about the proposal during the break. President Obama has come up with his own deficit-reduction proposal, but critics say it does not go far enough. Congress can also look forward to a heated debate over raising the debt ceiling. Some are hoping the so-called “gang of six” will provide a bipartisan answer to deficit reduction, but overcoming the deep political divide within Congress remains a steep uphill climb.

Federal

With Congress on recess last week, there is no Federal report for this week.

States

ARIZONA: Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed a bill that would have authorized cross-border sales of Arizona health insurance in the state. In the weeks since the bill passed out of the legislature, her office was bombarded by both opponents and proponents of the bill, including state Senator Nancy Barto, the bill sponsor and chairman of the Banking and Insurance Committee, whose op-ed on the legislation ran in the Arizona Republic last week. While acknowledging the need for a competitive and vigorous insurance market in Arizona, the governor cited two reasons for the veto: First, a concern that the Department of Insurance would have limited jurisdiction over foreign carriers, potentially putting the state’s citizens at risk; and second, discomfort over the fact that foreign insurers would be able to sell policies free of the mandated benefits legislators had determined should be afforded to consumers.

CALIFORNIA: The Assembly’s Health Committee voted 12-7, along party lines, to approve Assembly Member Mike Feuer’s bill that would allow state officials to reject California health insurance rate hikes deemed “excessive” in the individual, small or large group business segments. The measure would allow state regulators to deny, approve or modify proposed increases in health insurance premiums, deductibles or copayments. In addition, the bill would allow any consumer to intervene in a regulator’s decision by filing a civil lawsuit.  Intervener fees would be paid by the insurer submitting the rate increase proposal. The bill secured the 12 votes it needed to move out of the health committee and will be debated by the full Assembly before the end of June. Similar legislation passed the Assembly last year but was defeated in the Senate. Hospitals, physician groups and business organizations have joined health insurers in opposing the bill.

COLORADO:  After a rocky start, the Colorado health insurance exchange bill passed the Senate by a vote along party lines. It is now in the Republican-controlled House where it has yet to be placed on the hearing calendar. House co-sponsor Amy Stephens is expected to seek non-substantive amendments aimed at reframing the legislative declaration portion of the bill. Rep. Stephens has publically stated her support of an exchange mechanism in the absence of a federal requirement. The goal of the amendments is to provide her with some political cover in the face of expected opposition by fellow Republicans, and the Tea Party in particular, who are opposed to any federal health reform implementation. Also, after circulating late-in-the-session drafts of legislation to bring state law into conformity with the ACA concerning preventive care and adverse determinations and appeals, the Division of Insurance has decided not to file the bills.

CONNECTICUT: Under a legislative agreement with Governor Dannel Malloy announced last week, the Connecticut health insurance SustiNet bill is going to be amended from a broad public option to a more limited version of the Connecticut Healthcare Partnership pooling bill. The compromise removes two pieces of the SustiNet proposal: opening the state employee pool to small businesses and individuals, and offering state-run insurance to the public (the public option). The compromise bill would allow municipalities and nonprofits to enter the state employee plan but not small business or individuals. It also would create a new SustiNet board that would serve in an advisory capacity to the governor on health reform efforts in the state. SustiNet supporters last week held a rally to try to revive their original bill. But the governor is unlikely to agree to a public option, given its very significant costs to the state. When the SustiNet concept was created, federal health reform had not yet passed.  Now that it has, the governor is looking toward ACA as a way to increase access to health care affordably.

MAINE: The Republican Chairs of the Insurance Committee have introduced sweeping health care reform legislation designed to increase consumer options by attracting more carriers to the state and allowing more flexibility in products. The bill would expand rating bands in the small group and individual markets, repeal the geographic access provision that requires plans to contract with virtually every provider in the state, repeal the rule mandating certain standardized benefit plans, return to a file-and-use rate review process, allow captive insurers in Maine, allow cross-border selling in Maine, and create an Individual market reinsurance mechanism to be known as the “Maine Guaranteed Access Plan.” The new reinsurance fund would levy an assessment on all covered lives to fund a portion of the premiums for high-cost claimants. The new assessment would be capped at $4 per covered life. The bill was voted “Ought to Pass” out of the Insurance Committee along party lines.

MONTANA:  Both legislative chambers passed a joint resolution that calls for an interim study on establishing a health insurance exchange. Citing the wide ranging potential implications of not creating an exchange, the resolution requests a legislative council to direct an interim joint committee to consider the feasibility of creating an exchange or participating in a regional exchange. Issues for study include: options being considered in other states; variations on exchange functions; the scope of services to be offered by the exchange; potential for an exchange to facilitate cross-border sales; impact of including an application for a Medicaid waiver to allow premium assistance inside the exchange; whether the exchange should define levels of contributions and plan criteria; feasibility of premium aggregation; and interactions with producers and effect on compensation.  The interim committee would also be charged with studying potential cost savings and the provisions that would be needed to neutralize the cost of state employees participating in the exchange. Following the study,    recommendations will be made to the legislature regarding whether the state should proceed with establishing its own exchange or joining a multi-state exchange.  Stakeholders, including health insurer representatives, will be included in the deliberations.

NEVADA: A bill that would create the Silver State Nevada Health Insurance Exchange has been referred to the Commerce, Labor and Energy Committee but is not yet scheduled for its first hearing. Concurrently, Commissioner Brett Barratt continues to host stakeholder informational meetings across the state. The vast majority of the attendees at the five meetings held to date have been brokers. On another ACA issue, the state was advised that its application for a one-year medical loss ratio (MLR) waiver has been deemed “complete” by HHS. In other business, the Speaker’s rate review bill has passed in the House and is now in the Senate. In its current form, the bill would require prior approval of rates and forms with a 30-day deemer; transparency with completed filings published on the DOI website and all of a carrier’s policies, certificates of coverage and medical loss ratio data published on its own website; public hearings at the request of consumers or insurers; and the establishment of a Consumer Advocate position to represent the public.

NEW YORK: Senate Insurance Chair Jim Seward and Senate Health Chair Kemp Hannon held a roundtable discussion on insurance exchanges last week. About 10 representatives of stakeholder organizations invited to participate and generally urged caution and called for maintaining consumer choice, not creating a new regulatory bureaucracy, including all state mandates, and not incurring additional regulatory burdens and duplications of authority.  The Senate is expected to introduce a fairly lean exchange bill, with the goal of creating a governance framework for 2011. This could take the form of a public benefit corporation or a quasi-public authority, but not a new agency or nonprofit corporation.

NORTH DAKOTA:  The legislature has passed an insurance exchange bill that is expected to be signed by Governor Jack Dalrymple.  This would be the first exchange bill to be passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican governor. The purpose of the bill is to establish a framework for developing more specific policy positions and eventually an implementation plan for the exchange in North Dakota.

OKLAHOMA: A Senate bill that would create an Oklahoma health insurance exchange was filed last week shortly after Oklahoma’s Governor, Speaker of the House and President of the Senate announced an agreement to move forward on the issue. The bill would create the Health Insurance Private Enterprise Network, which would fulfill the stated purposes and functions of a federal exchange under ACA. The bill is short on details but would create a seven-member Board of Directors, including three   gubernatorial appointees (one representing carriers, one representing employers, and one representing providers). The board would also include a consumer representative (appointed by the Speaker of the House, an agent/broker (appointed by the Senate Pro Tem), the Insurance Commissioner (who also serves as Chair), and the Secretary of HHS. The Board will also appoint an executive director. The bill would require as-yet unspecified “public and private funding”, not to include the $54 million early innovator grant from the federal government. The stated goals of the Network are to promote/encourage portability of coverage; promote a competitive, market-based system that includes an aggregate premium system/defined-contribution insurance alternative; encourage carriers and providers to work together to provide quality, cost effective care; and establish a fair and impartial producer referral network for individuals and small employers. The Network would not have regulatory authority, discriminate against any qualified plan, or replace the outside market. Proponents of the bill will attempt passage before the legislature adjourns May 27.

TEXAS:  The Senate unanimously approved Sen. Jane Nelson’s bill to find extensive cost savings in Texas health insurance Medicaid program, the primary health care provider for children, the disabled and the very poor. The measure would expand Medicaid managed care into South Texas, where it has long been carved out. The move is expected to save the state $290 million over the biennium. Pulling prescription drug sales into the managed care program, the changes would require most Medicaid patients to use medicines on a state preferred drug list at a projected savings of $51 million a biennium. And, it would ensure people with disabilities receiving attendant care services at home are using a Medicaid contractor, saving an estimated $28 million a biennium. The measure also directs the comptroller to continue to collect a $5 per-person fee on patrons of strip clubs — a proposal that’s been tied up in court — until a final legal judgment has been reached. The projected cost savings have already been worked into the budget proposal Senate lawmakers are trying to bring to a vote.

VERMONT: The Senate voted 21-9 to approve an amended version of the single-payer legislation that previously passed the House on March 24. The bill will now go to a conference committee. As passed by the House, the bill would establish an exchange by 2014 that would eventually become the foundation for a single-payer system. The single-payer system, Green Mountain Care, would begin in 2017, the year when the ACA allows states to request waivers to opt out of certain requirements as long as an alternative approach would achieve the same coverage goals. The bill would permit earlier implementation of the system, upon receipt of federal approval. Other provisions include new rate review requirements. For rate increases that cumulatively would be 5 percent or greater during the plan year, health insurers would be required to submit a summary that includes a brief justification of requested rate increases, additional information for rate increases of over 10 percent, and any other information required by the insurance commissioner. Senate amendments, however, include a series of requirements that would have to be met before the Green Mountain System can be established, including a demonstration that the system would slow the growth of medical costs. Governor Peter Shumlin has indicated that he will sign either form of the legislation.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in arizona health insurance, california health insurance, colorado health insurance, connecticut health insurance, nevada health insurance, obama care, oklahoma health insurance, texas health insurance | No Comments »

Health Insurance Reform State Changes April

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

Governor Jan Brewer has signed a state budget that includes $1.1 billion in spending cuts and the elimination of programs that Democratic legislators say will have a disproportionate impact on the poor and children of the state. The budget eliminates $385 million from the Arizona Health Insurance Cost Containment System (Medicaid), effectively rolling back the coverage expansion to childless adults that voters approved in 2000. A legal challenge is expected by some because the program changes were not put to a public vote.

A medical loss ratio (MLR) bill sponsored by the California Health Insurance Commissioner was unveiled last week. In short, the legislation would require health insurers to comply with the federal minimum MLR standards and provide an annual rebate to insureds if the amount expended by the issuer on medical-related costs is less than a certain percentage of total revenue. It appears that the author’s intent is to exceed the requirements outlined in ACA and HHS regulations in three possible ways; 1) Federal regulation sets the process and requirements for rebates to consumers, if necessary, but the new bill could permit the state to modify those requirements; 2) the legislation fails to take into account MLR waivers that have been approved by HHS; and 3) the bill continues the misconception that rates filed must meet the federally defined MLR thresholds rather than the plan’s claim experience over the previous year. The bill also would authorize the Director of the Department of Managed Health Care and the Insurance Commissioner to issue guidance and promulgate regulations to implement requirements relating to MLR.

The non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) has issued the fiscal note for the SustiNet legislation, and their analysis shows that the cost of the plan will be significant. OFA concludes that SustiNet could cost the state up to $483 million annually in new expenditures. This finding comes at a time when the Malloy administration and the General Assembly are trying to balance a budget $3.3 billion or more in deficit. The governor also is concerned about SustiNet’s proposed structure, which would hand decision-making responsibility for the state’s $8 billion-dollar Connecticut health insurance care obligations to a quasi-public authority that has almost no accountability to taxpayers.

Also, the fiscal notes for the health benefit mandates show that all but one of the bills would have to go to the Appropriations Committee. The costs to the state include: $300,000 per year for a bill prohibiting copayments for preventive care services; up to $12,000 per person, per year for eliminating the age cap for health insurance coverage for specialized formula; and at least $2.38 million in FY 2012 and $4.76 million in FY 2013 for a bill concerning out-of-pocket expenses for non-preferred brand name drugs ). In addition, last year’s bill imposing the combined unitary tax was re-introduced. This proposal increases uncertainty and adds to the administrative burdens of businesses and the state by imposing mandatory unitary combined reporting of corporate taxes.

Despite a looming budget crisis in Kansas, the legislature adjourned the major part of the 2010 session on March 31 without approving a spending plan for the next fiscal year. Having used up 75 days of a 90-day session, legislative leaders decided it would be best to wait until for more up-to-date revenue projections before attempting to fashion a spending plan. Legislators will return for the wrap-up session on April 28, when they will try to write a budget with the new estimates. They face a nearly $500 million revenue shortfall despite nearly $1 billion in cuts in the past year from the $6.4 billion budget.

Current bills of interest include legislation that would prohibit Kansas health insurance plans from covering elective abortions, unless offered as a rider and applicable only when the mother’s life is at risk, Another bill would allow children to participate in the high-risk pool and would raise the lifetime limit from $2 million to $3 million. Also, House Bill 2182 has been amended to include seven different pieces of legislation, including the Health Care Freedom Act (anti-federal health reform), the Health Information Technology Act, and agreed-to language from the Pharmacy Audit Integrity Act. All of these topics remain on the table for the legislature when it returns in late April.

The 2011 legislative session concluded with Governor Susana Martinez taking action on two New Mexico health insurance reform bills. She vetoed a bill that would have established a health insurance exchange as an active purchaser and allowed the board of directors to limit the number of qualified health plans that could be offered in the exchange. While noting her support for creating a framework for an exchange, the governor expressed concern that the legislation was premature because of the litigation challenging federal health reform.

Keeping in mind negative consumer reaction to Blue Cross/Blue Shield’s 21 percent average rate request last year, Governor Martinez signed into law legislation giving the superintendent authority to approve rates. Approval will be based on five grounds: 1) compliance with federal law and the Insurance Code; 2) does not contain, or incorporate by reference, any inconsistent, ambiguous or misleading provisions that encourage misrepresentation of the policy or its benefits; 3) the rate is actuarially sound and supported by the actuarial memorandum ; 4) the proposed rate is reasonable, not excessive or inadequate and not unfairly discriminatory; and 5) the proposed rate is based on administrative expenses that are permitted by federal and state law. The Division of Insurance is required to post online plain language explanations of the basis for any rate increase and the company’s supporting financial information, and provide a 30-day public comment period. The decision of the superintendent could be appealed to the Public Regulation Commission and the state Supreme Court.

As Texas health insurance was the main issue, The House of Representatives started with a $164.5 billion budget and ended with the same total. But lawmakers spent the better part of a recent weekend making changes inside the 2012-13 budget before giving it their approval on a largely party-line vote of 98 to 49. The essentials remained the same, leaving public education and health and human services spending short of what it would take to maintain current services. The proposed budget requires none of the remaining $6 billion in the state’s Rainy Day Fund or any new taxes — though it does include $100 million in new fees. Conservatives successfully raided family planning funds in the budget, stripping money from those programs and diverting it to others that include autism, mental health services for kids and trauma care. The budget now heads to a Senate that’s on track to spend more money — about $10 billion more. If they can’t find middle ground, the legislature could go into special sessions after the regular session ends on Memorial Day.

A new report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs examines why costs are soaring and analyzes various cost-saving proposals under consideration in the legislature. In fiscal 2009, Texas state government spent about $30.2 billion on health care, a 36.1 percent increase from fiscal 2005.  “Health care accounts for more than 34 percent of all Texas government spending from state, federal and other funds,” Combs said. “The state cannot afford to let cost increases consume more and more of our budget.”  The largest share of health care spending is for programs such as Medicaid for the poor, disabled and elderly; mental health services; medical benefits for state employees and retirees, and health care for prisoners. Some of the health care cost drivers identified by the report include costly new drugs; a shortage of health care professionals; an aging population; lifestyle choices such as smoking, increasing Medicaid enrollment; and uncompensated care for the uninsured.  Some of the cost-saving proposals examined in the report include expanding the use of managed care in the Medicaid program; instituting a statewide smoking ban; requiring state employees who use tobacco to pay more for health insurance; and requiring state employees and retirees to pay a greater share of their health insurance benefit costs.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in HHS, MLR, arizona health insurance, blue cross, blue shield, california health insurance, connecticut health insurance, health insurance exchange, kansas health insurance, new mexico health insurance, qualified health insurance plans, texas health insurance | No Comments »

California Health Insurance Rate Amendments

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011

Extensive California health insurance amendments have been made to the rate regulation bill, which will be heard this week in policy committee.  This version of the bill goes beyond the Prop 103-style rate regulation, and appears to be a conglomeration of rate regulation and the rate review bill enacted last year. As expected, the proposal contains fees, penalties, administration fees and other regulatory powers designed to enact additional price controls on insurers beyond the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements of the federal law. Consumer activists are pushing fees, which are levied on insurers and paid to consumer groups arguing against filed rate increases. In the past seven years, consumer groups have been paid more than $10 million by property and casualty insurers to oppose premium increases. In the past, similar legislation has been defeated by developing a coalition of health plans, hospitals, providers and business groups to educate lawmakers on the drawbacks of this approach. Similar efforts are being organized this year.

In budget news, Governor Jerry Brown has officially called off negotiations with Republicans over a proposed June 2011 ballot measure that would decide whether to extend tax increases for an additional five years. The Governor has declared the Republican list of demands, including state pension reform, spending caps and regulatory relief, as too much to accomplish by the ballot deadline. The Governor and legislature will now consider Plan B, which is said to consist of additional budget cuts and a ballot initiative in either November or June. Going ahead with a June ballot initiative would require proceeding without Republican support by a simple majority vote — and the majority vote is likely to be challenged in court as unconstitutional.

Tags: ,
Posted in MLR, california health insurance | No Comments »

California Health Insurance Negotiations

Thursday, March 31st, 2011

As negotiations with Republicans to put tax extensions on the ballot in June have stalled, Governor Jerry Brown said that he would consider a November ballot initiative to extend tax increases and bypass Republican opposition.  With $4 million left in his campaign account, funding to qualify the measure for the ballot is available but additional revenue for a statewide campaign would be needed. Brown has been negotiating with five Republican lawmakers to help extend temporary taxes on income, vehicles and sales, a central part of his budget plan. Reaching a two-thirds majority would require at least two Republican votes in each chamber, a measure of support Brown has failed to obtain to this point.

In legislative news, AARP’s proposed legislation to amend California health insurance law to incorporate Medicare Supplement 2010 Standardized Plans M and N will be heard in committee next week. The bill contains provisions that go beyond federal and NAIC requirements by expanding guarantee issue rights to Medicare Advantage (MA) plan enrollees experiencing premium increases, benefit changes or network modifications.  The legislative language specifies that if a MA plan does not offer Medicare Supplement Plan coverage, then these individuals are permitted to enroll on a guaranteed issue basis in a supplement plan from any Medicare supplement carrier. Aetna health insurance has expressed its concern about how broadly the bill is written.

Tags: ,
Posted in aetna health insurance, california health insurance | No Comments »

California Health Insurance Health Care Costs

Friday, March 25th, 2011

The Assembly and Senate California Health Insurance Committees held a hearing last week examining why health care costs continue to escalate.  The hearing included testimony from health insurance policy experts, hospitals, doctors, medical groups, pharmaceutical companies, purchasers and health insurance plans. Aetna insurance worked with other insurers to brief legislators for the hearing and testify regarding increasing costs and how health insurance rates are developed.  Overall the hearing was informative and did not repeat the combativeness of a similar hearing last year. The day was primarily focused on the facts relating to cost drivers and how they impact premiums.

In other news, the legislature was able to pass billions of dollars in budget cuts, on a bipartisan basis, as part of a budget bill and a series of trailer bills. The legislature, however, did not pass any controversial issues dealing with revenues, nor was it able to pass a bill that the Governor wants eliminating redevelopment agencies. The governor will continue to negotiate this week with Republicans over remaining issues, including whether enough Republicans will support a ballot measure to extend tax increases that are due to expire in July.  If negotiations do not result in a budget compromise, it is likely that the legislature could move to a Plan B approach – additional cuts in the neighborhood of $10 billion or putting a measure on the June ballot with a simple majority vote, which is likely to lead to legal challenges.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in california health insurance, health care, health insurance plans, health insurance policy, health insurance rates | No Comments »

States Fight Back On Health Care Reform

Tuesday, March 8th, 2011

When the nation’s governors came calling at the White House last week, President Obama greeted his guests with the offer of new flexibility toward implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The President said he is willing to give states an earlier opportunity to opt out of certain key requirements of the law, but only if the states can find their own way to cover as many people without added costs. If Congress agrees to the new approach, states could gain exemptions by 2014 rather than 2017. But a number of governors expressed skepticism that the proposal offers them any real benefits, given the difficulty states would have meeting the President’s caveats. Some prefer to continue to pursue outright repeal. Still, the change in timing means exemptions could be earned in the same year that some of the most controversial provisions of the law go into effect. And, with the governors’ immediate focus on rising Medicaid costs, the proposal reportedly would let states send HHS officials a combined request to alter Medicaid and their approach to health care reform.

Federal
Last week a Florida federal judge clarified (at the request of the Obama Administration) his earlier decision back in January 2011 in which he ruled that the PPACA’s individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional. He also wrote that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of PPACA and, therefore, the whole law had to be set aside as unconstitutional.  In last week’s rather colorful ruling, the judge chided the government for sitting on its hands for weeks before asking for the clarification. He re-emphasized that the mandate and the whole law are unconstitutional and chastised the government both for failing to appreciate, as a matter of law, that the prior Declaratory Judgment was the “functional equivalent” of an injunction (meaning that the government could not proceed with implementation) and for having the temerity to suggest otherwise. The judge did not stop there, which would have halted all implementation of the PPACA had he done so. He instead decided that the government’s motion to clarify was also a motion to “stay” the imposition of the original ruling, and he granted the stay.  But he conditioned it with the requirement that the government file an appeal within seven days seeking an expedited “fast-track” appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) or the U.S. Supreme Court. This filing requirement is the major takeaway from last week’s ruling because it accelerates the timeline for the litigation, to the applause of the state and others who oppose the law. The Administration and the proponents of the law are less happy, since stringing out the ultimate decision would make it more difficult, if not impossible, to dismantle.

With House approval (314 to 112) last week, Congress is well on the way to repealing the 1099 provision of the PPACA, which imposes a costly and burdensome reporting requirement on employers.  Earlier this year, the Senate also voted to repeal the 1099 provision; however, the two chambers are worlds apart with respect to paying for the repeal. While the House version pays for the repeal by revising the rules for repayment of excess premium subsidies down the road, the Senate version doesn’t directly pay for it and only gives OMB the authority to go find the money. A House-Senate Conference (or an unofficial compromise) will be needed to resolve this impasse.

The anticipated government shut-down on March 4 was put off last week when both chambers passed (and the President signed) a two-week extension of a continuing resolution to keep the government officially funded until March 18.  This particular resolution actually cuts federal spending for the current fiscal year by $4 billion, which means that the House Republican savings target of $60 billion for FY 2011 is now down to $56 billion. Congress could very well bump along with such short-term resolutions throughout the spring. But at some point, the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate will have to permanently fund FY 2011 and get on with the FY 2012 budget, which is supposed to be in the works right now.
Multiple health-care-related hearings were held on Capitol Hill last week. In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour voiced support for funding Medicaid with block grants, under which the federal government would give states a set dollar amount for Medicaid rather than paying a percentage of costs. Under this system, states would have “total flexibility” to manage their Medicaid programs, according to Barbour.  The panel’s Democrats were quick to dismiss the idea of block grants, saying the change would harm vulnerable beneficiaries. Karen Ignagni, the President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Oversight Health Plan Programs to Combat Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. Her testimony addressed two issues: how health plans’ fraud detection units are using cutting-edge techniques to identify practices leading to substandard care – including overuse, underuse, or misuse of medical treatment; and suggestions for improving fraud detection and prevention in both public and private programs.  Part of her testimony also focused on the medical loss ratio (MLR) regulation, which she said will hurt the insurance industry’s efforts to detect and prevent fraud.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) last week released a study that shows “nearly 10 percent all Medicare payments are fraudulent or otherwise improper, and the government isn’t doing enough to stop them.”  The Medicare “fraud margin” is 9 percent, nearly triple the profit margin for the health plan industry (3.58 percent). The GAO also provided correspondence to the Hill on Medicare Private Sector Initiatives to Bundle Hospital and Physician Payments for an Episode of Care.  As one of the five largest national payers, Aetna insuranceae was interviewed and provided relevant materials. The GAO found that ongoing private sector bundling initiatives that achieve savings are an important consideration, in light of Medicare’s financial challenges. Bundled payments are feasible for Medicare, but there are several obstacles to overcome — such as manual claim processing systems, resistance to limiting provider choice and the lack of standard definitiions.

States

With the California health insurance deadline for the introduction of legislation during the 2011 session looming, and now passed. several health care-related measures were reintroduced, such as a single payer/universal care bill, prior approval and rate regulation, and mandatory autism coverage. In addition, a host of bills are in play that take another step toward implementing federal reform but appear to be inconsistent with PPACA. As in past years, legislators have proposed a host of new mandated benefits – 15 in total. They include several new ones, including the proposed elimination of step therapy for pain medications, fertility preservation services and forensic medical evaluations. The state’s mandate commission is reviewing the cost and public benefit of each of these proposed mandates and will issue a report that should be publicly available by the end of March.

Democratic Senator Irene Aguilar, the sponsor of a Colorado health insurance single-payer bill, engaged in a verbal confrontation last week with a representative of the Colorado Association of Industry and Commerce regarding the potential impact of her bill on employment in the state. Subsequent to a rally on the steps of the Capitol, the bill was voted out of committee, 4 to 3, along party lines. The bill has little hope in the Republican-controlled House and may not reach the Senate floor without some Republican support.

As in the past two years, the Connecticut Health Insurance Committee approved Speaker Chris Donovan’s bill called An Act Establishing the Connecticut Healthcare Partnership. This bill would open the expensive state employee health plan to small businesses, nonprofits and other groups. The goal is to attract a number of new employee groups to the state employee plan – nearly all of whom already have health insurance. In addition, the new state-run health plan would compete directly against the private marketplace. Given the high benefit levels, state employee plans are among the most expensive in the state. As such, this bill would not offer small businesses any real cost relief, achieve intended cost savings or increase the number of people with insurance. It could lead to substantial cost increases for taxpayers. The 11-9 committee vote was mostly along party lines, with most Democrats supporting the measure (except Sen. Joan Hartley and Rep. Linda Schofield), and all Republicans opposing it. This bill passed in 2008 and again in 2009, but was vetoed both times by former Governor M. Jodi Rell.

The Governor and Commissioner of Georgia Health Insurance are considering issuing an executive order that would create an Exchange Review Board. The Board would then consider and possibly develop legislation to implement a state insurance exchange in 2012. A bill is expected to be filed creating this advisory committee and is supported by the Governor’s office. The Governor may then follow with an executive order. Also, Aetna insurance expects an MLR waiver request to be filed by the DOI sometime this month.

The Department of Louisiana Health Insurance has indicated it will file an MLR waiver request this week despite indications from the Governor’s office that he does not approve of the request.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Oklahoma Health Insurance and Human Services passed a bill last week that would create a website to permit Oklahomans to see approximate pricing information for medical procedures and pharmaceutical products. The bill requires the Insurance Department, in collaboration with the State Department of Health, to establish and maintain an online health care information system that permits consumers to see pricing information from different types of providers and pharmaceuticals. The bill states that the purpose of the website is to serve as a resource for insurers, employers, providers, purchasers of health care and state agencies to continuously review health care utilization, expenditures and performance. It would also enhance the ability of consumers and employers to make informed, cost-effective health care choices. The bill would require that the presentation of data in the system allow for comparisons in the context of geography, demographics, general economic factors and institutional size.

Also of interest is a bill passed by the Senate Rules Committee last week that would allow Oklahoma to opt out of federal health care reform requirements. The bill asserts state control in the regulation of health care, would create a compact between certain states and would set forth formulas for figuring the right to federal funds for each member state. The bill also would create the Interstate Advisory Health Care Commission and establish membership requirements and duties of the commission. Primarily the commission would assist the legislatures of member states in the regulation of health care. It states the formation of this compact is contingent upon approval from the U.S. Congress. Democrats in Oklahoma’s Senate opposed the bill, some saying that it would force Oklahoma to rely on other states for regulating Oklahomans. Both bills will continue through the legislative process, which is scheduled to end in late May.

Rep. John Zerwas’ bill authorizing the creation of a state Texas health insurance exchange encountered mostly smooth sailing last week when it was heard by the House Insurance Committee. Going by the name of the Connector in the bill, the primary purpose of the exchange is to prepare Texas for changes in health insurance markets set to roll out in three years as part of federal health system reform. One important change in the new bill language presented at the hearing was the absence of an individual mandate to buy an insurance product. Groups expressing support for the bill included the Texas Association of Business and the Texas Hospital Association, among others. The bill was left pending by the Committee and will likely see more changes before it is brought to a vote. The Texas legislature continues in its regular session until June 1, 2011.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in aetna health insurance, california health insurance, colorado health insurance, connecticut health insurance, georgia health insurance, health care overhaul, health care reform, health insurance exchange, individual health insurance mandate, louisiana health insurance, obama care, oklahoma health insurance, texas health insurance | No Comments »

Very Busy Week In Individual Health Insurance Reform

Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

If you’re keeping score, three federal judges have now ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) while two have ruled against it. The latest to weigh in was a federal judge in the District of Columbia who last week upheld the constitutionality of the health reform law. The decision reinforces the divided opinion the lower courts have toward the law, which is expected to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision sometime in the next year or two. Predicting an outcome, many analysts agree, will not be easy.

Federal
Group customers offering Medicare Advantage and prescription drug coverage got some good news from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services last week. Last November, CMS announced that group customers would no longer be allowed to offer a Medicare Advantage-only plan alongside a stand-alone prescription drug plan and that as of January 2012 the customer would have to offer an integrated Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug Plan (MA-PDP). This set off a scramble to get ready for 2012, which would have been a very difficult, if not impossible, timeframe. Aetna health insurance began working with employers and trade groups to reverse or delay the CMS rule. Last week, CMS issued a favorable ruling to suspend indefinitely its November 2010 decision and not require an MA-PDP as the employer’s only option.

There were two important court developments last week related to health care reform and the constitutionality of the PPACA’s individual health insurance mandate, with more to come in the next week or two. First, a federal judge in Florida two weeks ago invalidated the mandate, striking down the whole statute with a declaratory judgment but stopping short of issuing an injunction directing the conduct of the parties. At the same time he said the declaratory judgment was the “functional equivalent” of an injunction.  The plaintiffs (many of the states) have publicly stated that the law no longer applies to them while the defendant (the federal government) has stated that nothing changes until appellate review is complete.  Last week, the Florida judge ordered legal briefs on this issue and is expected to rule shortly on the impact of his prior ruling on the parties involved.  Second, early last week, as expected, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the PPACA’s individual mandate, making it the third court to so rule. But the score is 3-2, and this is a best of seven series that won’t be settled before at least one Circuit Court decision and an essential Supreme Court opinion are rendered. Both could be well down the jurisprudential road.

States
A California health insurance bill that would bring state tax law into conformity with new federal tax rules governing the health coverage of adult children passed the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee by a unanimous vote last week. This conformity is important to employers, plans, and families because it exempts employee contributions toward covering certain adult children from state personal income taxes. It would also reduce a potential administrative burden for employers. Aetna insurance worked with its trade associations and joined a diverse group of interested parties, including labor, to help achieve a bipartisan outcome. The bill is expected to be fast-tracked and may be heard in Assembly Appropriations in the coming weeks.

In Colorado health insurance the newly released 2010 Annual Health Insurance Report of the Commissioner of Insurance contains a wealth of information — much of it collected from the insurance industry for 2009 — about the cost of health insurance and the factors that drive individual and group premiums in the state. The report notes that an estimated 15.7 percent of Coloradans had no health insurance in 2010, which is a slight improvement over 2009. More than 61 percent of Coloradans were covered by either commercial health insurance or a self-insured employer plan, compared to 54 percent in other states nationwide. Roughly 84 percent of premiums collected in 2009 by carriers went directly to the cost of providing health care services; 13.87 percent of premiums was used for administrative expenses and producer commissions. Not all coverage is regulated by the state — just over 40 percent of Coloradans had coverage regulated by the division of Insurance.

The Colorado Trust, a private grant making foundation, has issued a brief called The Economic Impact of Health Reform in Colorado that projects, as a result of national health care reform, insurance premiums will be nearly $2,000 less per year for individuals and nearly $4,000 less for family coverage by 2019. The projections are in part due to slower health care cost growth. Indeed, costs are expected to grow 5.5 percent to 17 percent less in Colorado by 2019 than without reform. Even after accounting for the costs of financing health care reform, this research projects that the state’s economic output will be nearly 1 percent more in 2019 than without reform, and 19,000 new jobs would be added as a result of coverage expansion.

The Connecticut Health Insurance Exchange Planning Committee held its first meeting under the new Administration of Governor Malloy last week.  Jeannette DeJesus, Department of Public Health Deputy Commissioner and the Governor’s Special Advisor on Health Care Reform led the meeting and stated that Senator Crisco’s insurance exchange legislation is the Administration’s proposal, based largely on the NAIC model act. Speaker Chris Donovan also has introduced an exchange bill in the House. Both proposals call for the establishment of a quasi public governing structure but differ on some timelines and board representation. DeJesus said the Administration would work with the House and solicit input form residents and stakeholders around the state to resolve the differences. Passage of a consensus bill is critical to the state’s ability to access Level II federal funding by June 30th. If legislation is not passed, DeJesus said that Connecticut will fall behind in its planning process. The state recently was awarded a $35.6 million federal grant aimed at helping New England states develop a state-of-the-art, online gateway to health insurance options. While Connecticut and other New England states are directly participating, the project is centered at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, supported by the non-profit New England States Consortium Systems Organization. The first meeting of that group will be in March.

Illinois health insurance advocate Governor Pat Quinn signed into law an Aetna-sponsored piece of legislation relating to insurer payments to certain non-participating providers. The bill applies to individual or group accident and health insurance carriers. Effective on June 1, 2011, when an enrollee utilizes a network hospital or ambulatory surgery center and an in-network provider is unavailable for radiology, anesthesiology, pathology, neonatology or emergency department services, the carrier is to ensure that the enrollee shall not incur greater out-of-pocket costs than for participating providers. The enrollee cannot be balance billed by the provider past the insurers’ in-network rate for these non-participating provider services. In addition, the insurer may pay the billed amount or attempt to negotiate the reimbursement with the out-of-network provider. In the event that the insurer and physician cannot agree on a reimbursement amount, either party can initiate binding arbitration within 30 days of receipt of an explanation of medical benefit. The bill is a major victory for consumers.

Kansas health insurance as a result of budget shortfalls, greater political attention is being paid to the significant cost of state Medicaid programs, and Gov. Sam Brownback has said he wants to get rid of the fee-for-service model. The governor has made redesigning Medicaid a priority in his proposed budget, Dispensing with the fee-for-service model would mean using marketplace tools, such as pharmacy benefit managers, to negotiate lower dispensing rates at pharmacies and communicate with physicians about generics. The Kansas Medicaid program could save $62 million in the next decade by using pharmacy benefit managers and other market-based tools, according to a recent study by The Lewin Group. Missouri could save $282 million. Bryan O’Neal, the assistant director of pharmacy at The Kansas Hospital, recently testified that the real opportunity for savings is getting clinical data and cost of medications in front of doctors at the time of prescribing. He recommended using electronic prescription systems, which allow doctors to see patients’ current medications and drug allergies as well as cost and clinical data. More than 500 pharmacies and 2,400 clinicians in Kansas use e-prescribing systems. But some have said legislation working its way through the Kansas and Missouri Senates could undermine the states’ e-prescribing systems by limiting information and discouraging physicians from using them. The bills would establish a separate set of standards for Medicaid and prohibit the use of “intervening parties” or pharmacy benefit managers. The Kansas bill came under fire during a Feb. 10 committee hearing. The lone proponent of the bill at the hearing was a pharmacy representative.

Michigan health insurance In his first budget, Governor Rick Snyder has proposed that the state’s current HMO-use tax on Medicaid plans be replaced by a 1 percent assessment on paid health claims to raise approximately $400 million. The paid claims would be an obligation on insured and self-insured entities. Details regarding this budget proposal, including operational issues and effective date, are unclear at this time. But the  Michigan budget is predicated on the implementation of this provision. If it fails, then the remaining options will be reductions in Medicaid, largely in provider rates and health plan premiums.

A Missouri health insurance bill that would create a health insurance exchange has been introduced by Representative Chris Molendorp, a Republican and chair of the House Insurance Committee. Despite input from a wide range of stakeholders, the complex bill is not likely to sail through the legislative process quickly or easily. It would 1) establish a health benefit exchange to facilitate the purchase and sale of qualified health plans and qualified dental plans in the individual market, and 2) provide for the establishment of a small business health options program to assist qualified small employers in facilitating the enrollment of their employees in qualified health and dental plans.  The bill would still allow for sales of plans outside the exchange. The exchange would be funded by assessments or user fees charged to health carriers and health benefit plans. The bill would establish the exchange as a quasi-governmental agency within the Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP) and under the direction of a 13-member board of trustees. The governor would appoint five members of the board, including a member from a licensed health insurance carrier. The exchange would also require each health carrier seeking certification as a qualified health plan to submit a justification for any premium increase before implementing that increase. Premium rates and contract language would have to be approved by the director of DIFP. The bill would exempt individuals from the federal PPACA mandate if there is no affordable qualified health plan available through the exchange or the individual’s employer. We expect the bill will be heard in Committee this week, after which drafting and negotiations will continue.

Two North Carolina health insurance exchange bills were filed last week. The bill that will likely move closely mirrors the National Association of Insurance Commissioner model legislation and is expected to be passed as a placeholder for legislation to come in 2012.

The Tennessee health insurance Department of Commerce and Insurance announced its legislative package last week, and it included a rate review bill. The bill is broadly written and gives the Commissioner authority to deny any rebates when the solvency of the company is in question.

The Department of Texas Health Insurance announced last week that it is in the process of reviewing and preparing for implementation of the PPACA MLR and rate review rules. They have invited stakeholders to participate in an informal work session on March 2 to obtain input on these topics. Additionally, since insurance carriers are not required to file rates for small group coverage in Texas, Department staff members are seeking input regarding the best and most efficient method of obtaining premium rate information for the small group market.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in aetna health insurance, california health insurance, colorado health insurance, connecticut health insurance, health insurance exchange, hmo, illinois health insurance, individual health insurance mandate, kansas health insurance, michigan health insurance, missouri health insurance, north carolina health insurance, qualified health insurance plans, tennessee health insurance, texas health insurance | No Comments »

The Real Deal On Health Insurance Reform

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

Without being too specific, President Obama signaled a willingness to consider changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) during his State of the Union speech last week. The only detail referenced, though, was the proposed elimination of a tax-reporting provision of the law that is unpopular with small businesses because of the new administrative burdens it creates. The provision mandates that small businesses provide a 1099 form to any entity from which they purchase more than $600 in goods and services, starting in 2012. The proposed elimination drew bipartisan applause during the speech. But if both sides of the aisle appear to like that particular revision, it is far less clear that consensus can be reached on any of the other proposals floated so far. A new survey shows that Americans remain divided on the health care law, with the percentage having an unfavorable view of the law growing. But the survey also found that a majority of Americans are opposed to using tactics such as blocking appropriations as a means to slow or undercut implementation of the law.

A pattern seems to be developing on the House side of Congress as Republicans are now flexing their majority muscles via Congressional hearings aimed at questioning the legality and practicality of the health care reform act passed in 2010. It was the Ways & Means Committee’s turn last week as the committee heard from two small business owners who expressed concern about future health insurance costs, their ability to maintain current levels of coverage, and barriers to expanding and hiring new employees. Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) noted the inherent conflict of imposing new taxes (e.g., on insurers) and expecting cost containment nonetheless. Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) discussed the importance of the individual health insurance coverage requirement, emphasizing that the success of market reforms is closely linked to bringing everyone into the system. Austan Goolsbee, Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, testified regarding the Administration’s expectation that the new law will succeed in holding down costs, and he highlighted the value of the small employer tax credits.  On the flip side, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former CBO Director and President of the American Action Forum, cautioned that the law frontloads new taxes and backloads new spending, thereby creating the illusion of federal deficit reduction. Holtz-Eakin testified that the law will have a detrimental impact on employment, wages, and economic growth.

Another health care hearing last week was held by the House Budget Committee, which focused on the fiscal consequences of the health reform law. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the committee chairman, emphasized that “health care spending is driving the explosive growth in our spending and our debt.”  He criticized the new law as a “centrally planned, bureaucratically run health care system” and expressed interest in building bipartisan support for policies that create incentives to enhance quality, reduce costs, and promote patient satisfaction. Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), testified that the health reform law (from 2010 through 2019) will increase national health expenditures by an estimated $311 billion, or 0.9 percent, compared to prior law. He also discussed the impact of Medicare funding cuts and indicated that some of the savings may be “unrealistic.”  Foster expressed particular concern about productivity adjustments for hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies, stating that simulations by his office suggest that roughly 15 percent of Part A hospital providers would become unprofitable within 10 years as a result of the productivity adjustments.

Arizona health insurance : While the legislature is focused primarily on the budget and the governor’s request for a Medicaid waiver, bills are beginning to be introduced. Of interest are: a proposed requirement that state employees be offered a wellness program as part of their health benefits; a mental-health parity mandate; a proposed requirement that the sponsor of a benefit mandate review data evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment or service; and a proposed exemption of health-care-sharing ministries from regulatory oversight on the premise that such practices do not constitute the business of insurance.

California health insurance : As the legislature continues to introduce bills in advance of the February 18 deadline, several repeat bills have already been introduced, including mandates on mental health, acupuncture and maternity services. A new mandate has been proposed to require health plans to cover fertility preservation services for cancer patients. The legislation, sponsored by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, would require coverage of services such as ovarian suppression, freezing of eggs and ovarian tissue, and fertility services after treatment of the cancer.

Illinois health insurance : A formal health insurance exchange bill has not yet been introduced for consideration in the General Assembly. However, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act has been introduced to create an independent, quasi-judicial Health Insurance Rates Review Board to determine whether proposed “insurance rates are reasonable and justified.”  The bill sets forth duties and prohibited activities concerning the board, and it would allow the Governor to make all of the appointments.  The bill would set requirements and procedures that health insurance carriers must follow in filing current and proposed rates and rate schedules, and it would allow the new board to review and approve/reject all rates and rate schedules filed or used by a carrier. Rate standards, public notice, and hearings are all addressed. The General Assembly is expected to consider quite a few bills and hold hearings on both exchanges and rate review during the current session.

Oklahoma health insurance : Last week the Department of Insurance held a meeting of the Oklahoma State Healthcare Exchange as a first step in the creation of a strategic road map. The Department announced the creation of Key Advisory Work Groups to develop recommendations on exchange-related issues.    Each work group and sub-group will be responsible for researching and developing recommendations on language to be used for the development of a strategic plan during the next three months. The key issues of study will include: governance and administrative structure, eligibility process and infrastructure,  enrollment, information technology, carrier and plan selection,  financial management, and education and marketing. Stakeholders attending the meeting were asked to volunteer to participate on groups for which they have knowledge and leadership experience. The Department hopes to assign volunteers to their preferred committees in the next few weeks so that workgroup meetings can get underway.

Texas health insurance : While publicly affirming his opposition to the federal health care reform bill, Rep. John Zerwas is explaining health insurance exchange legislation he drafted through an op-ed piece published in multiple major newspapers in the state. Zerwas argues that Texas could be forced to cede regulatory control of a significant chunk of its health insurance market to the federal government if it fails to create its own exchange this session. He explained that a desire to avoid such oversight has generated broad support for his bill from groups that include the Texas Association of Business, Texas Hospital Association, Texas Medical Association, Texas Restaurant Association and two Texas health insurance industry groups, as well as Republicans and Democrats in the legislature. Though supportive of efforts by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and others to have the health care bill ruled unconstitutional,    Zerwas said his connector proposal is about bringing down the cost of coverage by promoting competition and ensuring that Texas families and Texas employers have the right to choose their own coverage. He called passage of the bill good policy, regardless of whether PPACA is repealed, replaced or unfunded. The legislature will debate the bill during the current session, which will end June 1, 2011.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in arizona health insurance, california health insurance, health care reform, health insurance exchange, illinois health insurance, individual health insurance, obama care, oklahoma health insurance, texas health insurance | No Comments »

California Health Plan & Health Insurance

Friday, December 17th, 2010

In California health insurance, Governor-elect Jerry Brown appointed Diana Dooley (a Democrat) as the next secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency. Dooley currently serves as president and CEO of the California Children’s Hospital Association and previously worked as a special assistant to Brown during his previous term as governor. In her new role, Dooley will be directly involved in the implementation of the federal California health plan reform law. Dooley will be responsible for managing more than 33,000 employees, overseeing HHSA’s annual budget of about $25 billion in state funds and nearly $60 billion in federal funds, overseeing the state’s Medicaid program, and running California health plan programs for children in low-income households.

Tags:
Posted in california health insurance | No Comments »

Health Insurance Reform State Updates

Friday, November 26th, 2010

The Legislative New Mexico health insurance Health and Human Services Interim Committee has endorsed rate reviews and health insurance exchange bills.

Governor Dave Heineman has announced that Bruce Ramge has been appointed Director of the Department of Nebraska Health Insurance, effective immediately.

Governor Steve Beshear has announced changes  designed to save more than $142 million in the Kentucky health insurance Medicaid program over the next two years.

Illinois Health Insurance Reform Implementation Council is requesting public comments on a proposed health insurance  exchange.

Florida Health Insurance,  Now in special session, a significant Republican majority is emphasizing a message of fewer taxes, more discretion in spending, and greater accountability in state government.

While Governor-elect Jerry Brown has not yet announced his priorities for California health insurance, his website does state that he supports requiring health care cost transparency.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in california health insurance, florida health insurance, health insurance exchange, illinois health insurance, kentucky health insurance, nebraska health insurance, new mexico health insurance | No Comments »

« Older Entries