Over 900 comment letters were submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor in response to the proposed rule easing the formation of Association Health Plans. In the second of our blog series summarizing stakeholder feedback, CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette reviews comments from consumer and patient organizations.
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.
The White House and Secretary of Health & Human Services have recently called for making short-term plans renewable. CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette delves into what “guaranteed renewability” means and the risks to consumers and insurance markets if such a policy is extended to short-term insurance.
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).
In CHIRblog’s February installment of What We’re Reading, CHIR’s Olivia Hoppe digs into new research that highlights the consequences of the recent short-term limited-duration health plan rule, the effects of expanded private insurance on access to primary and specialty care, the impact of the ACA’s dependent coverage provision on birth and prenatal outcomes, and an assessment of state-level efforts to expand access, affordability, and quality of coverage.
New proposed rules from the Trump administration would loosen current federal restrictions on short-term, limited duration insurance products. In their latest brief for the State Health & Value Strategies program, CHIR experts Sabrina Corlette, JoAnn Volk, and Justin Giovannelli summarize the proposed rule and its potential impacts and provide a menu of options for states seeking to protect consumers and stabilized their individual markets.
In December, President Trump signed the Republican tax reform bill into law, which among other things, eliminates the health insurance mandate penalty and reduces the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent. The bill provides for $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, mostly benefiting high-income earners and corporations, which Republicans hope will stimulate economic growth. Now, a few months into effect health care companies are taking stock of how the tax law benefits their bottom line and how to best invest the savings for future success. CHIR’s Emily Curran looks into how some state regulators are reacting.
The Trump administration issued proposed rules on February 20, 2018 that rescind Obama-era restrictions on short-term, limited duration insurance products. This action, if finalized, would leave regulation of short-term health plans almost entirely to states. In their latest post for The Commonwealth Fund’s To the Point blog, CHIR experts Dania Palanker, Kevin Lucia, Sabrina Corlette and Maanasa Kona review current short-term plan standards in a sampling of 10 diverse states.
For decades, elite “concierge” practices have been providing easy access to primary care in return for several thousand dollars in retainer fees. Recently we’ve seen the emergence of more affordable versions of this arrangement, with monthly fees that cost far less than the average ACA marketplace plan premium. At first blush, these arrangements, frequently called “direct primary care arrangements” (DPCAs), might seem like a way to ensure access to health care services in the face of rising health insurance premiums. CHIR’s Maanasa Kona explains why this is not always the case.
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.
