HRA | CHIRblog

In a Post-Roe World, Employers Looking to Cover Out-of-State Travel for Abortion Services Have Multiple Options and Plenty of Uncertainty

Posted July 25, 2022 by CHIR Faculty

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, analyses project up to half of women and girls in the U.S. between the ages of 15 and 44 will live in states that significantly restrict or ban abortion services. The scale and geographic reach of these bans intensifies questions about travel costs and access to these services. Employers are looking at ways to cover abortion-related travel costs for workers.

Federal Policy Priorities for Preserving and Improving Access to Coverage: Perspectives from State-Based Marketplaces

Posted February 19, 2021 by CHIR Faculty

The Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplaces provide a critical source of coverage and financial assistance. Federal actions under the Trump administration undermined the marketplaces, but the new administration and Congress have opportunities to implement and advocate for policies that strengthen state-based marketplaces (SBMs). In a new issue brief for the Commonwealth Fund, CHIR experts assessed how federal policy decisions have impacted SBMs and the consumers they serve by interviewing directors and officials from 17 marketplaces.

Insurers Report on Their Q3 Financial Earnings: Marketplace Profitability, Retail Partnerships, and More

Posted December 17, 2019 by Emily Curran

Last month, health insurers reported on their third-quarter (Q3) financial earnings, offering insights on their yearly performance to date and commenting on the market and regulatory challenges they see ahead. CHIR reviewed the quarterly filings and earnings call transcripts for seven publicly traded health insurers, and found that many continue to experience financial stability in the individual market and are closely monitoring major policy changes that could have an impact on their businesses moving forward.

What’s New for 2020 Marketplace Enrollment?

Posted October 17, 2019 by Emily Curran

On November 1, the seventh open enrollment period begins for marketplace coverage under the Affordable Care Act. We at CHIR are tracking several policy changes that could affect marketplace enrollment and plan affordability in 2020, including: changes to health reimbursement arrangements, new direct enrollment pathways, and recent court rulings on association health plans and the public charge rule. To learn what’s new for 2020, read our CHIRBlog summarizing the major policy changes consumers might encounter this year.

Preparations for the Affordable Care Act’s 7th Open Enrollment Season: Georgetown’s Updated Navigator Resource Guide

Posted August 16, 2019 by CHIR Faculty

As August winds to a close, Georgetown CHIR’s faculty are focused not on pumpkin lattes and back-to-school clothes but on health insurance. The Affordable Care Act’s 7th open enrollment season is just around the corner and we’re gearing up to re-launch an updated and improved Navigator Resource Guide. The Guide, which includes hundreds of FAQs about marketplace eligibility, available coverage options, and post-enrollment issues, will be updated to reflect several changes in federal health policy.

A Perfect Storm: New Federal Rules on Health Reimbursement Arrangements Exacerbate Dangers of Unregulated Products

Posted August 2, 2019 by Rachel Schwab

Next year, new Trump administration rules will allow employers to offer their employees an HRA to buy individual market coverage instead of a traditional group health plan. Because of an obscure provision of the tax code, many employees will be required to use the new accounts to shop for a plan outside of the ACA’s marketplaces, where they’ll face aggressive marketing of products that do not have to comply with the ACA’s consumer protections. Rachel Schwab looks at this perfect storm that puts workers at risk of ending up in the wrong plan.

Federal Rule Creating New Health Coverage Option for Employers Could Destabilize the Individual Market

Posted July 26, 2019 by JoAnn Volk

The Trump administration recently published final rules expanding employers’ use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) for employees to purchase individual market insurance. CHIR’s JoAnn Volk assesses the final rule and its implications for employers, employees, and the individual market in an updated post for the Commonwealth Fund’s To The Point blog.

Stakeholders React to the Administration’s Proposed Rule on Health Reimbursement Arrangements. Part 4: Consumer, Patient, and Union Organizations

Posted March 15, 2019 by Olivia Hoppe

In October, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule that aims to expand the “flexibility and use” of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). To understand reactions to the proposal, CHIR reviewed a sample of comments from state officials, insurers, consumer advocates, and employer, broker and benefit advisor groups. In Part 4 of this blog series, we highlight comments from six consumer and patient advocates and employee unions.

Stakeholders React to the Administration’s Proposed Rule on Health Reimbursement Arrangements. Part 3: Employers, Brokers, and Employee Benefit Advisors

Posted February 28, 2019 by

In October, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule that aims to expand the “flexibility and use” of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). To understand reactions to the proposal, CHIR reviewed a sample of comments from state officials, insurers, consumer advocates, and employer, broker and benefit advisor groups. In Part 3 of this blog series, we highlight comments from nine employer, broker, and benefit advisory groups.

Stakeholders Respond to the Proposed Health Reimbursement Arrangement Rule. Part 2: Insurers

Posted February 21, 2019 by Emily Curran

In October, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule that aims to expand the “flexibility and use” of health reimbursement arrangements. To understand reactions to the proposal, CHIR reviewed a sample of comments from state officials, insurers, consumer advocates, and employer, broker and benefit advisor groups. In Part 2 of this blog series, we highlight comments from ten major medical insurers and associations, who argued that stronger non-discrimination provisions are needed to prevent adverse selection and ensure stability in the individual market.