SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (767834)2/4/2014 1:38:38 AM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576239
 
Don’t expect ‘spiraling premiums’ in 2015
'3R' risk mitigation – reinsurance, risk corridors, risk adjustment – adds one more layer of stability to ACA's qualified health plans
By Louise Norris
January 4, 2014
healthinsurance.org

With the problematic rollout of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges over the past few months, there has been some hand wringing in the media about whether or not the new health plans will be sustainable. ACA opponents are no doubt hoping that premiums will spiral out of control. Even supporters of the ACA have expressed concern that if the newly insured population ends up being smaller, older or sicker than projected, premiums could climb significantly in 2015.

As with much of the anecdotal accounts and media reports regarding the ACA, there may be some validity to the worries about the increased risk presented by the newly insured population in 2014, but there is also plenty of hyperbole and spin.

Sarah Kliff addressed the “death spiral” concerns in an excellent Washington Post article recently, noting that even if young adults end up being 25 percent less likely to enroll than older people, premiums would only have to increase by 1 percent to account for the resulting skewed demographic. But “death spiral” generates much more exciting headlines than 1 percent rate increases, and thus we hear more about the former.

There are multiple provisions built into the ACA to protect against rate shock and adverse selection, and to stabilize the new health insurance market (and several states have taken additional measures on their own). Carriers must use single state-wide risk pools for all of their individual or small-group insureds (in some states, those are further combined into one risk pool) to smooth out differences that might arise based on the health of the exchange-insured population vs. those insured outside the exchanges. And the individual mandate helps to ensure that risk is eventually spread over the largest possible population.

But there are other measures built into the law. Reinsurance, risk corridors and risk adjustment are additional ACA provisions specifically designed to stabilize new plans, especially in the individual market, which is most susceptible to destabilization.

Reinsurance

The three-year reinsurance program can be run by states or by HHS to collect tax-deductible funds from group health insurance plans on a per-insured basis and remit funds to non-grandfathered individual health plans – both on and off exchange – that incur high claims costs.

In 2014, the reinsurance fee will be $63 per year per group plan member, but this will drop to $44 per year per member in 2015, and self-insured plans are no longer subject to the fee in 2015. The total amount collected will be $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion in 2016.

Initially reinsurance was to kick in when a claim exceeded $60,000. But in late November, HHS proposed new guidelines that would lower the threshold to $45,000. Reinsurance pays 80 percent of the claim above that point, until total claims for that insured reach $250,000 for the plan year.

So for example, if an insurer pays a $200,000 claim for an insured, the insurer would receive $124,000 in reinsurance funds [($200,000-$45,000) x 0.8]. The lowered attachment point for the reinsurance program is an answer to the dilemma posed if the new pool of insureds is sicker than originally anticipated. The existence of this program is one reason we’re not likely to see spiraling premiums in 2015.

Risk corridors

The HHS-run risk corridor program will serve to further stabilize the individual and small-group markets. It allows insurers to share in both losses and gains over the next three years. Each qualified health plan (including QHPs sold off-exchange that are substantially similar to QHPs sold in the exchange) will have a target amount set for claims costs, roughly equal to total premium revenue minus allowable administrative expenses.

If claims costs are less than 97 percent of the target amount, the insurer will remit a portion of the savings to HHS. The money will then be sent to insurers with claims costs that exceed 103 percent of the target amount. The risk corridor program helps to mitigate the uncertainty in insurers’ premium calculations for the new plans being sold in 2014, and will continue to provide market stabilization through 2016.

Risk adjustment

The third program, risk adjustment, is a permanent feature and applies to all non-grandfathered individual and small group plans, both in and out of the exchanges. Essentially, it transfers money from plans with lower risk enrollees to plans with higher risk enrollees. States can opt to have HHS run the risk adjustment program, submitting composite risk scores (i.e., no specific per-insured health information) to HHS.

States that operate their own exchanges can run the risk adjustment program themselves, utilizing composite risk scores or individualized data submitted by insurers. There are some broad guidelines – largely based on the Medicare Advantage risk adjustment program – that must be followed, but HHS regulations provide plenty of flexibility in terms of how state-run risk adjustment programs operate.

The ACA’s “3R” risk mitigation program is just one more layer of stability in the law, adding to provisions like the individual mandate and unified risk pools. There will certainly be some hiccups in the early years of full ACA implementation. But there are integrated mechanisms embedded in the law that will ensure its long term success.

Doom and gloom reports about how the ACA will implode on itself are generally either ignoring the market stabilizing provisions altogether, or are uninformed as to how they will work.



To: i-node who wrote (767834)2/4/2014 1:39:38 AM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576239
 
Just how bad are junk health policies?



Why consumers should be thrilled that many health insurance plans that 'expired' in 2013 were pulled off the shelves by health reform
By Louise Norris
healthinsurance.org

Before the ACA was created, there were periodic news reports about health insurance horror stories. They usually centered around limited benefit plans, mini-meds offered to minimum-wage employees, discount medical plans (not technically insurance, but the people who bought them didn’t always know that), and individual policies with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese.

In the pre-2014 individual health insurance market, the plan options ran the gamut from great to horrible. Without a good pair of reading glasses or a trusted broker, it was often tough to decipher whether you were getting a solid policy or a junk one.

Those news reports were usually met with collective outrage. How could such worthless “coverage” even be available in the U.S.? Why weren’t there laws prohibiting those plans?

And yet now, we treat the cancellation of substandard plans as a scandal instead. It’s true that there’s a grey area. Anytime that you draw a line in the sand, there will be people just under the line who say that the line should be a little lower. In some cases, the old policies were good quality but the shift to guaranteed issue coverage resulted in a new plan design. But in other cases, the insureds believed that they had good coverage (and are upset that it’s going away) only because they’ve never had to use the policy for a major claim.

$54/month for reliable coverage?

Dianne Barrette’s story was widely covered in the media after she found out that her $54/month policy was getting cancelled and a new one would cost ten times as much. (Red flag alert: Before the ACA’s subsidies, there was no such thing as good individual health insurance for a 56-year-old for $54 a month. Prices like that disappeared a generation ago.) As it turns out, Barrette’s policy would have paid $50 towards doctor visits and some limited preventive care, but otherwise covered almost nothing.

We know that Barrette’s old policy was worthless. But what did real health insurance in Florida cost prior to 2014? The statewide average monthly premium for individual health insurance in 2012 was $243/month. For a 56-year-old, the premium would have been significantly higher.

Barrette’s income makes her eligible for a sizable subsidy on a 2014 plan, bringing the cost of real health insurance down to the $100-$240/month range. The 2014 plans are better quality than even the non-junk plans that were being sold in 2012. And yet someone like Barrette, earning $30,000 a year, will pay less in 2014 than she would have for a real health insurance plan in 2012, even though the new policy is better.

From $279 to $65 a month

Rainy Knight, a substitute teacher with a “limited income,” can just barely afford her $279/month, $10,000 deductible health insurance policy. Knight says “If I apply [for an exchange plan], they’re going to charge me even more money.” Her story was reprinted in numerous media outlets without any additional clarification, and we’re left wondering where she got the idea that she’d pay more for a new policy.

The average substitute teacher in Washington makes $100/day. Even if Knight subs five days a week for the entire school year, her yearly pay at that rate would be $18,000. Based on that income and the retail price of plans available to her, she would qualify for a subsidy that would pay more than 90 percent of the price of a Silver plan in the Washington exchange.

Her portion? About $65 a month. Hopefully, someone filled her in on the details. Even though she qualifies for Medicare in July, she could save herself more than $200/month for the first half of this year by switching to a new plan and getting a subsidy. A new plan would also provide better coverage, limiting her total out of pocket (not just the deductible) to no more than $6,350.

The holes in junk health policies Insureds who extended their old plan into 2014, and those who are upset that their existing plan was cancelled, are sometimes surprised to learn exactly what was not covered by their old plan.

Nearly one out of five individual plans did not cover prescription drugs prior to 2014. And some of the plans that did cover prescriptions did so only for generics. In Washington, the state Insurance Commissioner had to issue an emergency rule banning generic-only coverage two years ago, when a major carrier had switched to generic-only benefits and the two other main carriers in the state were about to follow suit.

Generic-only prescription coverage is simply not the safety net that health insurance is supposed to provide. Only about half of brand name drugs have a generic equivalent, so there are plenty of medications that are not covered at all if you have generic-only benefits.

Only 34 percent of individual plans covered maternity prior to 2014 (clustered mainly in states where maternity mandates were already in place: California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington). Sixty-one percent of individual plans covered mental health care, and 54 percent covered substance abuse treatment. And these numbers include plans that only provided limited benefits in those areas.

Not counted in these numbers are discount plans, specific disease plans (policies that pay if and only if you get cancer, for example), and association benefit plans that aren’t technically insurance. In theory, these policies aren’t meant to serve as a person’s only coverage. But in reality, they often do, and their members are not always aware of the fact that they don’t actually have real health insurance.

Before the ACA was written, numerous states had enacted legislation relating to medical discount cards, but in most cases, the regulations did not prohibit their sale. Limited-benefit association health plans are notorious for providing benefits that fall far short of being health insurance. But a professional association’s endorsement of a very limited plan can lend it an air of credibility, and policy holders might only find out when they’re in need of significant medical care that their coverage isn’t worth much.

If you opted to extend your 2013 plan into this year, be sure you’ve made your decision based on facts. There are plenty of free quote resource tools that you can use to see what’s now available in the individual health insurance market. And open enrollment continues until the end of March, so there’s plenty of time to see exactly how a new plan would compare with what you have, both in terms of price (including any available subsidies) and coverage.

Buyer still beware

Now that the Affordable Care Act has taken effect, you might be wondering whether you can still purchase “junk policies.” The short answer is that all plans that are considered individual major medical have to comply with the rules of the ACA, regardless of whether they are sold on or off exchange. So for example, there are no new major medical plans that don’t cover prescriptions or maternity or impose lifetime maximums.

However, you can still find plans outside the exchange that don’t meet the standards enforced by the health reform law. You can still purchase discount plans in most states and limited benefit plans – including those endorsed by an association – and still purchase supplemental and illness-specific plans. Basically, policies that note that they are not major medical insurance can still be purchased in most areas.

But people who try to have only those plans on their own would be subject to the individual mandate penalty, as those policies are not considered minimum essential coverage. (In the past, there was nothing stopping a person from having only an accident supplement policy, for example.) Those types of policies were never intended to be stand-alone coverage, and with the penalty in place, it’s less likely that they’ll end up being purchased as stand-alone coverage going forward.



To: i-node who wrote (767834)2/4/2014 1:41:03 AM
From: bentway  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576239
 
Hate Obama, Love Obamacare

By Steven Brill
January 27, 2014

I don't think Obamacare will help us. I don't want anything to do with it," Stephanie Recchi told me a week after the launch of HealthCare.gov on Oct. 1. "I hear a lot of bad things about it--that it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions and it's too expensive," she added, referring to what she said were "television ads and some politicians talking on the news. Just a lot of talk that this is a bad law."

Recchi's interest in health insurance is anything but casual. Those who read TIME's special report in March on health care costs ("Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us") may recall that when Stephanie's husband Sean, then 42, was diagnosed with cancer a year earlier, the couple--who together were drawing about $3,500 a month from the small business they had just started in Lancaster, Ohio--had to borrow from her mother and max out their credit cards to try to save him.

MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston had told Stephanie that their insurance (for which they paid $469 a month) was virtually worthless. So the hospital demanded $83,900, in advance, just to develop a treatment plan for Sean and cover his first $13,702 transfusion, along with simple items like gauze pads at $77 per box and routine lab tests for which he was billed tens of thousands of dollars.

As I reported, Stephanie recalled that her husband was "sweating and shaking with chills and pains. He had a large mass in his chest that was ... growing. He was panicked." Nonetheless, Sean was held in a reception area and kept from seeing a doctor for about 90 minutes until the hospital confirmed that the Recchis' check had cleared.

All of which explains why despite the negative--and in this case, completely inaccurate--scuttlebutt she says she had heard about Obamacare, Stephanie Recchi visited HealthCare.gov repeatedly after it launched. But, she said, "I just never got anywhere ... It kept freezing or crashing."

That Obamacare crashed on Stephanie and Sean Recchi, of all people, amid a torrent of misinformation about what the law could or could not do for them, epitomizes the calamity of the failed launch. But what has happened to the Recchis and their health care options more recently might be emblematic of the law's potential.

The key provisions of Obamacare seem as if they were drafted by someone sitting next to Sean Recchi in that MD Anderson holding room. Under the law, insurance companies can no longer turn away people with pre-existing conditions or even take those conditions into account when determining what people like the Recchis pay for their coverage. When Stephanie logged on in October, she was shopping for a family facing the ultimate pre-existing condition--cancer. Although Sean is now in remission, he is regularly seeing doctors in Ohio and taking drugs costing hundreds of dollars a month.

Stephanie, Sean and their two children are also a perfect match for the demographic that Obamacare was designed to serve: a family of four earning less than $40,000 a year, unable to get insurance from an employer because the Recchis had just started their own business.

Another feature of Obamacare is those much heralded online insurance exchanges, meant to enable those without job-related coverage to log on and find an array of competing products, none of which would be allowed to have the bait-and-switch limits that had left Sean unprotected when he needed lifesaving care. (When he was diagnosed with cancer, Sean's policy limited his coverage to $2,000 a day in the hospital, which at MD Anderson barely covers an opening round of blood tests.) And all policies would be presented on the exchanges in plain English for easy comparison. Or, as President Obama often put it, buying health insurance would now be like going online to buy an airplane ticket.

Finally, people with incomes below 400% of the poverty line (up to about $94,000 for a family of four like the Recchis) would get subsidies from the government, so that it all would be more affordable. If they were at or below the poverty level, they would be enrolled in Medicaid for free.

The Recchis now know all that, and they're fully insured for 2014. But it took a while. When we spoke in October and Stephanie told me she didn't "think Obamacare will help us," I suggested that she might be mistaken and that if she was unable to get information from the then sputtering website she should consult an insurance broker. (Insurers pay the brokers' fees, not consumers.)

"When they came to my office, Stephanie told me right up front, 'I don't want any part of Obamacare,' " recalls health-insurance agent Barry Cohen. "These were clearly people who don't like the President. So I kind of let that slide and just asked them for basic information and told them we would go on the Ohio exchange"--which is actually the Ohio section of the federal Obamacare exchange--"and show them what's available."

What Stephanie soon discovered, she told me in mid-November, "was a godsend." The business that she and her husband had launched--which sells a product that enables consumers to store their DNA or that of family members for future genetic testing--had recently received investor interest after being featured on an episode of the television series CSI. So she estimated to Cohen that their income would be about $90,000 in 2014. But even at that level, her family of four would qualify for a subsidy under Obamacare.

The Recchis and their agent soon zeroed in on a plan with a $793 monthly premium that provided full coverage, though with a deductible of $12,000 for the entire family, meaning the Recchis would pay the first $12,000 in expenses. After the deductible was reached, there would be no co-payments for anything, including all drugs. However, the Obamacare subsidy, assuming a $90,000 income, brought their cost down to $566 a month. If their income was the same $40,000 Stephanie had estimated for 2013, the subsidy would increase and their premium would be just $17 a month.

"They had budgeted insurance at $1,200 for each of them for their new business," says Cohen. "That's $2,400 for the two of them, compared to $566, so they were thrilled ... They had seen all those stories on television, and because of their views about Obama, they believed what they wanted to believe--until they saw these policies and these numbers."

"Here I get full protection for $566, compared to no protection for almost $500," Stephanie says, referring to her old plan that had cost $469 monthly and that MD Anderson had scoffed at. "This is wonderful."

It ended up even better than that. Because Cohen could enter only the Recchis' actual reported 2013 income onto the website, not their anticipated income when and if the investment deal is completed, and because that reportable income turned out to be significantly less than the $40,000 Stephanie had estimated, the website moved them automatically into Medicaid--meaning their coverage, for now, is free. That's because Ohio Governor John Kasich decided to buck a majority of his fellow Republican governors and accept Obamacare's subsidies so he could expand Medicaid coverage.

Kasich's decision, however, illustrates one of three aspects of the Recchis' story that throw cold water on this fairy-tale ending.

First, if Kasich had followed the lead of Obamacare resisters like Texas Governor Rick Perry, the Recchis would have been in the following through-the-looking-glass situation: If, as it turned out, their income was below the poverty level, they would have had to pay the full $793 for this insurance if they lived in Texas (but nothing in Ohio). But if their income was actually $90,000, they would pay only $566. That's because the law as written required all states to accept the government's subsidy for Medicaid to be extended to everyone with incomes below the poverty level. As a result, no premium subsidies in the exchange plans were provided for people below the poverty level, because they would presumably go into Medicaid. But in June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the states' expansion of Medicaid had to be voluntary. That left the poor in states such as Texas or Florida that did not expand Medicaid faced with having to pay more than those who are not poor. Unlike the middle class, they could buy only health insurance without subsidies, because they were supposed to have been sent into Medicaid.

Here's the second asterisk to the Recchis' happy ending: even once the website was fixed, Sean and Stephanie still needed help from Cohen, their insurance agent, to make sense of it all. Buying health insurance is exponentially more complicated than buying a plane ticket. The exchanges have "bronze," "silver," "gold" and "platinum" levels of coverage, each featuring multiple variations of premiums, co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles. There are also the hard-to-find and harder-to-understand lists of which hospitals and doctors are in the insurance company's networks. And those lists are models of clarity compared with the lists of drugs that are covered by each plan.

"There is no way the Recchis or anyone else can figure out what they're buying without someone who has been trained sitting with them," says Cohen. Sure, that's a self-serving assessment, but in interviews across the country with people who have signed up for Obamacare (and from my own experience), I found no one who fully understood the benefits, the costs or, most important, the limits of what they were buying unless they were helped by agents or by "navigators"--enrollment assistants trained and certified by officials operating the exchanges.

Understanding the limits of what consumers are buying puts another damper on the Recchis' story: their insurance--whether Medicaid for now or the plan they are likely to transition to later this year--is not going to cover them at MD Anderson in Houston. No Ohio plan will. In fact, only two of 79 plans offered in Texas on its federally run Obamacare exchange include coverage at MD Anderson.

MD Anderson is extravagantly expensive. With its well-deserved international brand name, it has more than enough business without letting insurance companies negotiate for discounts in exchange for being included in their networks.

More generally, one of the ways insurance companies have tried to limit their costs and the premiums they are charging on the Obama exchanges is to have relatively narrow networks that are limited to the hospitals, doctors and other providers who offer the companies relatively cost-effective prices. Because there is frequently little or no relationship between cost and quality in the dysfunctional world of health care economics, this does not necessarily mean patients will receive inferior care, though it might. But it does mean that, contrary to a promise Obama made in promoting Obamacare, patients will often not be able to be treated by the doctor they want or at the hospital they want.

As with his vow that Americans could keep their insurance if they liked it, this is a promise the President should not have made. He can't control insurance companies' decisions about their networks, nor should he want to. Costs might come down and quality might go up when insurance companies can make hospitals and doctors compete on quality and price to be in their networks.

In other words, expanding coverage to people like the Recchis while trying to control premium costs is going to mean that not everyone gets the platinum care they want and that others will. When it comes to health care, as opposed to buying a car, that's difficult for anyone to accept. "No, we don't get MD Anderson, but we do get the Cleveland Clinic and lots of other good care," Stephanie says. "We understand that." Amid the likely attacks from his opponents that he's taking away patients' favorite doctors and hospitals, Obama has to hope that others come to share her attitude.

Find this article at:content.time.com