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.
In a new article published on The Commonwealth Fund’s To The Point site, CHIR experts Dania Palanker, JoAnn Volk, and Justin Giovannelli look at the individual health insurance market before the Essential Health Benefits and the financial risk consumers will bear if we return to a market without benefit protections.
State regulators were making progress on mental health parity enforcement, due in part to new federal grants and technical assistance. But a repeal of the ACA would put at risk further progress on achieving parity in coverage for mental health and substance use disorders.
As our country grapples with an “unprecedented opioid epidemic,” Congress is taking steps to take away an important tool to fight it — the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In a post for the Health Affairs blog, CHIR expert Dania Palanker and Urban Institute researchers Lisa Clemans-Cope and Jane Wishner assess policies and programs under the ACA that have helped tackle the opioid crisis and what could be lost if they are repealed.
Medical underwriting, outlawed by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is a practice used by insurance companies to assess a consumer’s health status. In the event of an ACA repeal, millions of people could lose coverage, pay higher premiums, or receive inadequate benefits that exclude essential health services, all based on a pre-existing condition. While many of us don’t see ourselves as falling under that category, the list of health conditions that qualify you for the chopping block may surprise you.
A new issue brief published by the Commonwealth Fund and authored by CHIR’s newest faculty member, Dania Palanker, examines exclusions in insurance policies sold on the ACA marketplaces and finds that several have a disproportionate impact on women, limiting their access to care. Dania shares some highlights.
HHS released the final Section 1557 rule, completing the suite of non-discrimination rules that constitute some of the most dramatic recent changes in health insurance regulation. JoAnn Volk looks at how the rules stack up in protecting consumers with pre-existing conditions.
Our very own Sabrina Corlette was invited back to the U.S. House of Representatives for the second time in a month, this time to give testimony before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. Here are a few highlights from the May 11 hearing.
The ACA prohibits benefit limits and cost sharing that discriminate against individuals based on health status and other factors, but federal rules also stress that insurers can continue to use reasonable medical management, which would allow benefit limits based on certain circumstances. JoAnn Volk looks at what this may mean for regulators and consumers trying to tell the difference.
Federal Affordable Care Act rules require the states to revisit the standard scope of benefits for individual and small business health plans – called essential health benefits or EHB – and determine whether revisions are needed. In a new blog post for the Commonwealth Fund, CHIR experts examine how the states approached this task, and what it might mean for consumers.
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.
