This Mother’s Day, both Congress and the Trump administration have put together a special gift basket of policies that continue to threaten access to health care for women, mothers, and families everywhere. From federal funding cuts to weaker benefit requirements, CHIR’s Rachel Schwab and Dania Palanker unwrap the presents and assess their potential impact on coverage.
Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, states have embraced the law to varying degrees. While some states have refused to implement the ACA and actively oppose it, other states have leaned in, stepping up to preserve the consumer protections and market rules in the wake of federal actions to weaken the law. CHIR’s Rachel Schwab examines steps that Washington State has taken to ensure that their residents can continue to obtain affordable, high quality coverage, and how other states can do the same.
As tax filing season comes to a close, CHIR’s Emily Curran discusses recent findings by the JPMorgan Chase Institute showing that many will spend their tax refunds on health care. The findings are consistent with other trends showing that as out-of-pocket costs increase, individuals defer medical care, which can lead to serious health and financial consequences.
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.
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.
In a new Commonwealth Fund issue brief, CHIR’s Justin Giovannelli and Emily Curran interviewed leadership staff of 15 of the 17 state-run marketplaces to understand how states on the forefront of health reform perceived and responded to federal policy changes and political uncertainty in 2017. Their research finds that federal administrative actions and repeal efforts created confusion and uncertainty in 2017 that negatively affected state-run markets.
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.
Open enrollment has ended, and almost 12 million individuals signed up for coverage through the state and federal marketplaces. While enrolling in health insurance raises an abundance of questions, selecting a plan is only the beginning. Once you’re in a plan, using your benefits, accessing care, and potential confusion about the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate bring their own set of challenges. To help answer common post-enrollment questions, we cracked open our trusty Navigator Resource Guide.
On March 1st, a coalition of stakeholders, including Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms (CHIR), the DC Health Benefit Exchange, the Acting Attorney General of Hawaii, AFL-CIO, Center on Capital & Social Equity, Families USA, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Partnership for Women & Families and the Small Business Majority released a letter calling on the Department of Labor (DOL) to withdraw or substantially delay the proposed regulation regarding Association Health Plans (AHPs).
Last week Blue Cross of Idaho filed the first “state-based” health plans, products that don’t comply with the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for coverage offered on the individual market. When a state can’t or won’t enforce federal law, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is supposed to step in. CHIR’s Rachel Schwab outlines HHS’ authority to protect the rule of law and ensure that Idaho consumers continue to receive the benefits they are promised under the ACA.
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.
