Category: CHIR
May Research Roundup: What We’re Reading

April showers bring May flowers, and May was abloom with health policy research. Last month, we read about the impact of ending pandemic-related coverage policies, consumer awareness of the resumption of Medicaid renewals, and approaches to tackling rising health care costs in commercial health insurance markets.
More Than a Website: Should the Federal Government Establish Additional Minimum Standards for the ACA’s Health Insurance Marketplaces?

The Affordable Care Act established health insurance Marketplaces to facilitate enrollment in comprehensive and affordable health insurance. Most states rely on the federal government to run their Marketplace, but recently, several states have expressed interest in taking over Marketplace operations. With Marketplace enrollment at an all-time high, and millions more people poised to transition from Medicaid to commercial insurance, the role of the Marketplaces as a coverage safety net has never been more pivotal. But federal rules impose few standards for states launching and maintaining a Marketplace. It may be time for the federal government to establish a stronger federal floor.
April Research Roundup: What We’re Reading
States Move Forward with Public Option Programs, but Differ in How They Select Insurance Carriers

Washington, Colorado, and Nevada are partnering with private health insurance carriers to offer new “public option” plans. In a post for the Commonwealth Fund’s To the Point blog, CHIR’s Christine Monahan and Madeline O’Brien compare state approaches to selecting insurance carriers to offer the new state plans.
March Research Roundup: What We’re Reading
Providers Challenge Payments In ‘No Surprises’ Act Dispute Resolution Process

Under the No Surprises Act, consumers are held harmless beyond in-network cost sharing when they receive certain kinds of out-of-network care. In these scenarios, to determine the provider’s payment, payers and providers may enter independent dispute resolution (IDR). Recently, federal agencies released an initial report on the No Surprises Act’s IDR process. In a post for Health Affairs Forefront, CHIR experts Jack Hoadley and Kevin Lucia analyze the new report and discuss what it suggests about the No Surprises Act.
Coverage of Preventive Services Without Cost Sharing in Jeopardy as Texas Court Strikes Down ACA Protection

At the end of March, a federal judge in Texas partially invalidated one of the ACA’s most popular provisions—the requirement to cover a set of preventive services without cost sharing. In a recent post for the Commonwealth Fund’s To the Point blog, CHIR experts break down the recent decision and how it will impact access to care.
Biden’s Budget Sets Up a Spending Showdown, With ACA Subsidies in the Crosshairs

President Biden released his Fiscal Year 2024 budget earlier this month, outlining the administration’s spending and policy priorities for a number of key programs, including the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces. However, with a sharply divided Congress, consumers who rely on Medicaid and the ACA’s Marketplaces are likely in the crosshairs of an upcoming spending showdown. CHIR’s Emma Walsh-Alker examines the potential impact of cutbacks to the ACA’s Marketplace subsidies on low- and moderate-income families.
Questionable Conduct: Allegations Against Insurers Acting as Third-Party Administrators

Nearly half of U.S. residents are enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance. Many of these plans use third-party administrators (TPAs), intermediaries—frequently insurance companies themselves—that help build provider networks, design benefit packages, and adjudicate claims, among other responsibilities. But a TPA’s interests may not align with those of their employer clients. CHIR’s Christine Monahan highlights several examples of questionable insurer-TPA practices uncovered in recent years.