Winter is finally over, and health policy research is in full bloom. In March, we read about disparities in health insurance coverage for people of color, medical debt, and preventive service usage among private health plan enrollees.
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.
The U.S. Department of Justice has requested that a Texas district court suspend its decision to strike down the ACA’s preventive services benefits while it pursues an appeal. In her latest Health Affairs Forefront article, CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette explores what could happen if a stay is not granted in the case.
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.
The Biden administration has proposed new rules for the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) marketplaces in 2024, which are expected to be finalized any day. In the final installment of our annual NBPP stakeholder comment series, CHIR’s Rachel Schwab reviews state responses to the proposed rule.
The Biden administration is poised to finalize new rules governing the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces and insurance reforms for plan year 2024. In the second installment of our annual review of key stakeholder responses to the proposed policy changes, CHIR’s Kristen Ukeomah and Karen Davenport focus on consumer advocate comments on the proposed rule.
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.
The Biden administration is poised to finalize new rules governing the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces and insurance reforms for plan year 2024. In its annual review of how key stakeholders are responding to the proposed policy changes, CHIR will be publishing a three-part series focused on insurance company, consumer advocate, and state comments on the proposed rule.
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.
The Affordable Care Act is now 13 years old. To celebrate this milestone, CHIR takes a look at the law’s big accomplishments and its impact on American families.
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.
