Alexander-Corker Bill Would Likely Reduce, Not Expand, Consumers’ Health Insurance Options

Posted by

Humana’s decision to pull out of the individual market in 2018 has prompted more concern over areas facing a dearth of marketplace plans next year, or “bare” counties. Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker recently introduced a bill that would waive the individual mandate for residents of bare counties, and allow them to receive federal premium tax credits to purchase plans outside of the marketplace. Sarah Lueck of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shares a new analysis of the bill and its potential impact on insurers and consumers.

Court Dismisses Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina’s Risk Corridor Lawsuit—What About the Other Risk Cases?

Posted by

On April 18, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina’s risk corridor lawsuit, ruling that the insurer’s claim was premature. CHIR’s Emily Curran delves into this and other lawsuits filed by health insurers across the country, all of whom seek to recoup critical premium stabilization funding from the federal government.

New Report Emphasizes States’ Power to Protect Consumers and Ensure Stable Markets in the Midst of Federal Uncertainty

Posted by

In the past few months, Congress and the Trump Administration have floated a number of proposals and three-pronged plans, many of which put states in the hot seat of implementing and overseeing major changes to the health care system. In a new report funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Consumer Representatives outline the potential impact of federal proposals, and how state Departments of Insurance can protect consumers and promote market stability through their role as regulators and advisors to state and federal policymakers.

At NAIC Spring National Meeting, the Future of the Affordable Care Act Was Front and Center

Posted by

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrapped up its Spring National meeting, and the ACA was on the agenda – but it was definitely a moving target. That’s because the meeting agenda was set before the House of Representatives pulled a bill to repeal and replace the ACA. As a result, the planned discussion over the AHCA had to be adjusted to encompass a broader look at potential administrative, legislative, and market factors that could affect the ACA’s future. CHIR’s JoAnn Volk shares some highlights from the meeting.

What’s Going on in Tennessee? One Possible Reason for Its Affordable Care Act Challenges

Posted by

Recently the Governor of Tennessee observed that his state was “ground zero” for insurers pulling out of the ACA marketplaces. In the wake of Humana’s decision to withdraw from the marketplaces for 2018, the residents of 16 counties in that state face the prospect of no insurance company at all from which to buy a subsidized health plan. Tennessee is not alone in having a fragile ACA marketplace, but its situation is particularly acute, especially if no other insurer can be persuaded to operate in those counties. Why is Tennessee’s market struggling, when other states with similar demographics, such as Arkansas, have more competition and market stability?

Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Doesn’t Lower Costs for Consumers

Posted by

In the wake of the failure of the legislative effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, the fate of the President’s proposal to authorize the sale of insurance “across state lines” is unclear. In their latest article for the Commonwealth Fund’s To The Point blog, Sabrina Corlette and Kevin Lucia examine different potential approaches to promoting cross-state sale of insurance and what they mean for states and consumers.

New Network Adequacy Rules: Less Federal Oversight, More Deference to States

Posted by

In a soon to be finalized “market stabilization” rule, the Trump Administration has proposed a new approach to the oversight of health plan network adequacy. Sabrina Corlette reviews the administration’s revised stance and what it could mean for state-level enforcement, and for the consumers enrolled in marketplace plans.

Proposed Trump Administration Rule Shortens Open Enrollment: Policy Goals, Potential Impact, and State Options

Posted by

In February, the Trump administration proposed a number of rules that they hope will stabilize the individual market. One of these rules would cut this year’s open enrollment period from 90 days to 45 days. While HHS argues that the shorter timeframe could streamline the enrollment process and improve the risk pool, other health care stakeholders have expressed concern that a shortened OE might dampen enrollment and overwhelm state-based marketplaces. With the final rule expected any day, what are the possible impacts of shortening the annual enrollment period? CHIR’s Rachel Schwab takes a look.

Loss of Cost-Sharing Reductions in the ACA Marketplace: Impact on Consumers and Insurer Participation

Posted by

In an updated article published on The Commonwealth Fund’s To the Point site, CHIR experts JoAnn Volk, Dania Palanker, Justin Giovannelli and Kevin Lucia examine the possibility that the Trump administration will pull the plug on the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing reduction subsidies, and discuss the potential consequences for individual health insurance markets and the consumers who rely on it.

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.