On September 12, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services released the in-person assistance awards for the 2018-2019 enrollment season. The Administration allotted $10 million to the federally facilitated marketplaces, a more than 80 percent drop in funding over two years. CHIR’s Olivia Hoppe explains the risks the funding cuts pose on consumers and the ACA marketplaces.
Within the last month, Delaware has adopted two policies with diametrically different effects on their small business insurance market. One would help make the market stronger and more stable, the other would do the opposite. CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette delves into some of the challenges facing states seeking to stabilize their health insurance markets during a time of considerable policy upheaval.
Congressional Republicans plan to pursue another attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act next year if they maintain control of Congress after the midterm elections in November. Our Center for Children & Families colleague Edwin Park delves into what this would mean for Medicaid and insurance protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
Summer is over, but health policy researchers have hardly taken a vacation. In August’s research round up, CHIR’s Olivia Hoppe looks into studies examining specialty drug coverage across commercial plans, the effects of the Affordable Care Act on people of different income levels, individual market premium predictions, employer-sponsored high-deductible health plans, and surprise medical bills in employer-sponsored insurance.
On September 5, 2018, A federal district judge hears arguments in a lawsuit filed by 20 Republican governors and attorneys general to invalidate the Affordable Care Act, including its widely popular protections for people with pre-existing condition protections. Georgetown CHIR’s latest research for The Commonwealth Fund finds that a decision for the plaintiffs in this case could be be felt quite differently, depending on where you live.
The Texas Medical Association recently issued a warning to consumers about the risks of health care sharing ministries, noting an increase in calls about these coverage arrangements. Recent CHIR research documents the increased marketing of this coverage to insurance brokers and consumers, as well as the lack of state-level insurance oversight.
In June, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a final regulation that implements President Trump’s executive order encouraging the expansion of association health plans for small businesses and self-employed individuals. Under these rules, professional or trade associations will be permitted to sell health plans that are exempt from many Affordable Care Act protections as early as September 1, 2018. To better understand how these new rules will affect states, CHIR experts interviewed six state regulators.
On August 2, a coalition of cities filed a federal lawsuit against President Trump and the Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that the administration has “intentionally and unconstitutionally” sabotaged the Affordable Care Act. The complaint alleges that the President has increased the cost of health coverage by discouraging enrollment, stoking uncertainty in the insurance markets, and reducing consumer choice. CHIR’s Emily Curran breaks down their complaint and evidence of alleged harm.
Value-based payment models are promoted as a way to transform our health care system from one that rewards value rather than the volume of health care services delivered. These models require providers to accept the risk of financial losses should spending on patients in their care exceed targeted levels. A new brief from State Health and Value Strategies, authored by researchers at Bailit Health and CHIR, explores potential state approaches to oversight of provider organizations that accept financial risk.
Health Care Sharing Ministries (HCSMs) are a form of health coverage in which members – who typically share a religious belief – make monthly payments to cover expenses of other members. HCSMs do not have to comply with the consumer protections of the ACA and may provide value for some individuals, but pose risks for others. We interviewed officials in 13 states and analyzed state laws in all states to better understand state regulators’ perspectives on regulation of HCSMs.
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.
