This Mother’s Day, both Congress and the Trump administration have put together a special gift basket of policies that continue to threaten access to health care for women, mothers, and families everywhere. From federal funding cuts to weaker benefit requirements, CHIR’s Rachel Schwab and Dania Palanker unwrap the presents and assess their potential impact on coverage.
The Trump administration has released a new final rule to govern the Affordable Care Act’s individual and small-group markets, known as the 2019 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters. The rule includes an expansion of states’ role over the ACA’s health plan benefit and affordability provisions. In her latest Expert Perspective for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s State Health and Value Strategies Program, Sabrina Corlette untangles the rule and its implications for state decision-makers.
In a recent proposed rule from the Department of Labor, the Trump administration has proposed major changes to the regulation of Association Health Plans (AHPs). In the fourth blog of our series examining feedback from stakeholders, CHIR’s Olivia Hoppe summarizes comments from twelve business groups.
On February 5th, the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) put out a Notice of Funding Opportunity. The federal agency anticipates that $8.1 million is available for state initiatives focused on insurers’ compliance with federal market reforms and consumer protections, giving states the opportunity to improve their oversight efforts. With the February 26th deadline for letters of intent just around the corner, CHIR’s Rachel Schwab provides an overview of the new grant program.
The final 2019 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters has been submitted to the White House for review. The initial proposal included a number of changes to the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits, marketplace operations, and other consumer protections. In this second post in a series of blogs analyzing public comments on the proposed rules, CHIR’s Rachel Schwab examines responses from a range of consumer advocacy groups to better understand who the rule could impact.
The Trump Administration has proposed a number of changes to the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefit standard, marketplace operations, and other consumer protections. In this first in a series of blog posts analyzing public comments on the proposed rules, CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette finds that insurance industry responses were not always what you’d expect.
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published an annual set of proposed rules for the Affordable Care Act marketplaces on October 27. Called the “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters,” the rules set out expectations for insurers and the states that regulate them. In her latest post for CHIR, Katie Keith highlights key areas in which this administration would give states new autonomy and authority.
In the third of a multi-part blog series on state options in the wake of federal actions to roll back or relax Affordable Care Act regulation, Dania Palanker reviews potential changes to the essential health benefit standard and the implications for consumers. She discusses what state legislatures and insurance regulators can do to ensure consumers continue to access affordable health care services.
Another day, another version of the Graham-Cassidy bill. This new version makes numerous technical changes that continue to place health care for the roughly 90 million consumers who rely on the individual health insurance market or Medicaid at risk. CHIR expert Dania Palanker outlines how the bill could affect access to affordable coverage for women, people with chronic illness, older people, and others.
While members of Congress debate possible bipartisan actions on the ACA, the future sustainability of the ACA’s consumer protections and markets also depend on regulatory and administrative actions. CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette reviews a series of recent actions by HHS to recast the federal approach to health plan oversight and tees up an upcoming series of CHIRblog posts outlining options for states that want to retain some or all of the reforms adopted by the ACA.
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.
