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.
As the number of opioid-related overdose fatalities remains alarmingly high, access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is inconsistent. Private insurance does not always cover the full range of MAT options, and when it does provide coverage cost sharing can be prohibitive. CHIR’s Rachel Swindle takes a look at state and federal reforms that can help lessen private insurance related barriers to treatment.
Congress is poised to enact the Inflation Reduction Act, a $740 billion reconciliation package that includes sweeping climate change, deficit reduction, and health policy provisions. In her latest Expert Perspective for the State Health & Value Strategies project, Sabrina Corlette reviews the health care changes and their implications for states.
New health policy research topped CHIR’s list of beach reads this July. For the latest monthly research roundup, we reviewed studies on marketplace enrollees’ denied claims, how marketplace coverage has benefitted small business and self-employed workers, and out-of-pocket spending on insulin.
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.
Employer-sponsored insurance is the largest source of health coverage in the U.S., but the employer market’s historic status as the “backbone” of the U.S. health care system is imperiled by rising health care costs. A public health insurance option could help reduce health care costs and expand access to coverage for people with job-based insurance, and has received increasing support among employers.
The ACA requires that most insurers and employers cover a set of preventive health services at no cost to enrollees. Estimates suggest that more than 150 million people have access to over 100 services such as cancer screenings, contraception, and vaccines without any out-of-pocket costs. A case pending in federal court threatens to cut off consumers’ access by allowing insurers to impose cost-sharing on these services or, in some cases, cease covering them altogether. CHIR’s Rachel Schwab takes a look at some of the currently free services in jeopardy.
Utilization management is one tool that insurers can use to help keep premiums in check, but it comes with significant tradeoffs for patients. CHIR’s Megan Houston considers the history and current landscape of utilization management tools, what they are used for and what policymakers are doing to keep them in check.
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.
