The No Surprises Act (NSA) aims to protect consumers facing surprise medical bills after receiving care from out-of-network providers under circumstances beyond their control. In a new report for the Commonwealth Fund, CHIR experts look at how states are working with the federal government to implement this landmark law.
The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) aims to remove insurance-related obstacles to mental health and substance use disorder treatment, but inadequate compliance has raised questions about health plan enrollees’ ability to access critical behavioral health services. In a new issue brief, CHIR experts look at current barriers to effective state enforcement and identify opportunities to improve MHPAEA compliance.
Hospitals and health insurers are now required to publicly post their prices for health care services. However, as Maanasa Kona and Sabrina Corlette observe in their latest Health Affairs Forefront blog, the new disclosure requirements have not – yet – translated into data that can be used to identify the drivers of health care cost growth. Their piece identifies options for federal and state regulators to improve compliance and ultimately help support informed health care purchasing and policy decisions.
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that Affordable Care Act requirements that insurers cover and waive cost-sharing for preventive services is unconstitutional. While the case is likely to be appealed, states can act now to preserve residents’ access to affordable and often life-saving preventive care. In a new Expert Perspective for the State Health & Value Strategies project, Sabrina Corlette and Justin Giovannelli outline how.
CHIR is delighted to welcome three new faculty members to our team: Research Professor Linda Blumberg, Senior Research Fellow Karen Davenport, and Assistant Research Professor Vrudhi Raimugia.
For the third time, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights has proposed rules to effectuate the application of civil rights protections to the health care industry under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. If finalized, the regulation will have significant implications for health insurers and provide important nondiscrimination protections for insurance enrollees.
The Biden administration has published its final rules governing the independent dispute resolution process outlined in the No Surprises Act. In a new Expert Perspective for the State Health & Value Strategies project, CHIR’s Jack Hoadley, Kevin Lucia, and JoAnn Volk review the rule and its implications for state regulators.
The affordability of diabetes care is a national issue. Even with insurance, diabetic patients can spend thousands of dollars on medication, supplies, and health services. These costs can present a particular burden on Black families. Black and Hispanic patients face disproportionally high hospitalizations and emergency department visits due to diabetes complications, emphasizing that affordable access to diabetes care is an issue of health equity. In a new post for the Commonwealth Fund, CHIR experts highlight different approaches states are taking to reduce health care disparities for diabetic patients.
Many of those losing their Medicaid eligibility after the COVID-19 public health emergency will have illnesses or conditions requiring uninterrupted access to health care services. In their latest Expert Perspective for the State Health & Value Strategies project, Sabrina Corlette and Jason Levitis outline several policy and operational changes states can make to ensure that people transitioning from Medicaid to the Marketplace can maintain continuity of care.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, analyses project up to half of women and girls in the U.S. between the ages of 15 and 44 will live in states that significantly restrict or ban abortion services. The scale and geographic reach of these bans intensifies questions about travel costs and access to these services. Employers are looking at ways to cover abortion-related travel costs for workers.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual blog post authors and do not represent the views of Georgetown University, the Center on Health Insurance Reforms, any organization that the author is affiliated with, or the opinions of any other author who publishes on this blog.
