A handful of states have received insurers’ 2018 premium rate requests for the Affordable Care Act marketplaces and made them public. CHIR experts dig into the insurers’ rate filings to find out some of the key factors behind many of the proposed premium hikes.
As we’ve been blogging about, the Trump administration finalized a Market Stabilization rule that makes numerous changes in how marketplaces and insurers are operating. One of the biggest changes affecting consumers is the Trump administration’s new interpretation of guaranteed issue or availability; but states have a range of options regarding this policy under the rule. CHIR’s Sandy Ahn and JoAnn Volk break it down for us.
Insurers are required to submit their health plans and premium rates for regulatory review in the face of considerable uncertainty over the future of the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces. In their latest post for The Commonwealth Fund, Sabrina Corlette and Kevin Lucia examine the sources of this uncertainty, how it affects insurers’ ability to plan for the coming year, and what it means for state and federal regulators who must assess the reasonableness of proposed premium hikes.
Insurers are starting to submit their proposed plans and rates for 2018 coverage to state regulators. What do these early filings tell us about how the industry is responding to continued uncertainty over the future of the Affordable Care Act? Sabrina Corlette takes a look.
This Mother’s Day, Congress is giving mothers a new health coverage menu with options for states and insurance companies to reduce their coverage through the American Health Care Act (AHCA). The selection could make you lose your brunch.
A provision tucked into an amendment to the House-passed “American Health Care Act” would effectively kill off the few insurers remaining in the Affordable Care Act’s CO-OP program. CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette explains.
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.
In the wake of failed congressional attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, we turn back our focus on the administration and its approach to the marketplaces. The proposed market stabilization rule would require a pre-verification process for special enrollment periods for all marketplaces, including states operating their own. This move is largely in response to insurer concerns, indicating an interest in working with participating marketplace insurers. But how does this fare with states that have their own special enrollment processes? CHIR’s Sandy Ahn takes a look.
For the time being, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the “law of the land.” But increasing uncertainty about the policy future has left the individual insurance market at risk and could result in fewer choices and higher premiums, In the past, Congress has demonstrated that it can arrive at bipartisan solutions to tackle insurance market challenges and help consumers. CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette outlines what a common sense ACA reform package could look like.
In February, the Department of Health & Human Services released proposed rules affecting the ACA’s health insurance marketplaces. In response, they received close to 4,000 public comments. In the first of a series of three posts examining reactions among health care stakeholders, CHIR’s Emily Curran assesses the reaction of insurance companies.
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.
