The 2019 Affordable Care Act Payment Rule: Summary & Implications for States

The Trump administration has released a new final rule to govern the Affordable Care Act’s individual and small-group markets, known as the 2019 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters. The rule includes an expansion of states’ role over the ACA’s health plan benefit and affordability provisions. In her latest Expert Perspective for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s State Health and Value Strategies Program, Sabrina Corlette untangles the rule and its implications for state decision-makers. Continue reading

March Research Round Up: What We’re Reading

In CHIRblog’s March installment of What We’re Reading, CHIR’s Olivia Hoppe dives into new research that highlights premium trends from the most recent enrollment period, whether employers will continue offering subsidized coverage to employees, the use of the ACA’s tobacco surcharge in the small-group market, and the early effects of the Trump administration’s health insurance policies on coverage. Continue reading

The Future of the Affordable Care Act under President Trump: Stakeholders Respond to the Proposed Association Health Plan Rule. Part V: Departments of Insurance

In this final blog in our series reviewing stakeholder comments on the Department of Labor’s proposed rule to expand Association Health Plans, CHIR’s Emily Curran summarizes responses from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and nine state departments of insurance (DOI). While the DOIs expressed some areas of support for the proposed rule, their comments were largely negative, with most expressing deep concerns about the rule’s ambiguity. Continue reading

States’ Latest ACA Lawsuit Threatens to Reignite “Repeal-Without-Replace” – With Real Consequences for Stakeholders

Earlier today, California, along with 15 state attorneys general filed a motion to intervene in the latest ACA lawsuit, where governors and attorneys general from 20 other states are alleging that the law is unconstitutional. CHIR’s Emily Curran explains how the lawsuit, if successful, is tantamount to ACA “repeal-without-replacement,” resulting in significant losses in coverage and financial harm. Continue reading

The Future of the Affordable Care Act under President Trump: Stakeholders Respond to the Proposed Association Health Plan Rule. Part IV: Business Groups

In a recent proposed rule from the Department of Labor, the Trump administration has proposed major changes to the regulation of Association Health Plans (AHPs). In the fourth blog of our series examining feedback from stakeholders, CHIR’s Olivia Hoppe summarizes comments from twelve business groups. Continue reading

The Future of the Affordable Care Act under President Trump: Stakeholders Respond to the Proposed Association Health Plan Rule. Part III: Insurers

The U.S. Department of Labor received over 900 comments on its proposed rule, which aims to promote the growth of Association Health Plans. In this third blog of our series examining feedback from stakeholders, we summarize comments from ten of the largest health insurers and associations. Continue reading

The Future of the Affordable Care Act under President Trump: Stakeholders Respond to the Proposed Association Health Plan Rule. Part II: Consumer Advocates

Over 900 comment letters were submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor in response to the proposed rule easing the formation of Association Health Plans. In the second of our blog series summarizing stakeholder feedback, CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette reviews comments from consumer and patient organizations. Continue reading

The Future of the Affordable Care Act under President Trump: Stakeholders Respond to the Proposed Association Health Plan Rule. Part I: State Attorneys General

The Trump administration has proposed major changes to the regulation of Association Health Plans (AHPs). To understand the potential impact of these proposals on consumers, employers, insurers, and states, CHIR reviewed comments submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor by various stakeholder groups. For the first blog in our series, CHIR’s Rachel Schwab examines comments submitted by eighteen state attorneys general, officials who, thanks to their consumer protection responsibilities, have unique insights into the potential risks and benefits of AHPs. Continue reading