Through both inaction and design, federal policymakers have put the onus on states to ensure access to affordable, adequate health insurance. In a new work for The Commonwealth Fund, CHIR researchers are launching an interactive map that will track and describe state actions likely to affect residents’ access to individual market coverage.
Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, states have embraced the law to varying degrees. While some states have refused to implement the ACA and actively oppose it, other states have leaned in, stepping up to preserve the consumer protections and market rules in the wake of federal actions to weaken the law. CHIR’s Rachel Schwab examines steps that Washington State has taken to ensure that their residents can continue to obtain affordable, high quality coverage, and how other states can do the same.
As we near the end of the second week of a so-far successful Open Enrollment, uncertainty over the future of the Affordable Care Act remains a challenge. As insurers and state regulators prepared for the 2018 plan year, they addressed questions of whether Congress or the Trump Administration would make major changes to the law. This led to a situation in several states where some or all counties seemed likely to have no insurance plan available for residents seeking marketplace coverage. In a new issue brief for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, CHIR experts examine the actions of six states that faced the prospect of bare counties for 2018.
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.
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.
Congressional leaders and the President have said any plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will ensure access for people with pre-existing conditions. However, how they are covered matters a great deal, in part because of the effects on the stability of the risk pool in the individual market.
In the late 1990s, Medicare officials faced decisions by insurers to cancel nearly half of their Medicare Advantage contracts. In a new issue brief for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Georgetown experts Jack Hoadley and Sabrina Corlette assess the policies and strategies adopted to manage instability in the Medicare Advantage and Part D markets and whether they can be used to stabilize the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Key takeaways from that issue brief are shared here.
We’re starting to learn more about health insurance premium rates for 2015. Whether they go up, down, or stay the same, many will view them as a referendum on the ACA. Sabrina Corlette shares two new resources that help improve our understanding of the factors that drive premium rates.
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act are latching onto the law’s “3Rs” (risk corridors, risk adjustment, and reinsurance) as a “bailout” for insurers. Yet one of the models for the 3Rs is the Medicare Part D drug benefit, where these programs have been working for years to help stabilize premiums. Georgetown University Health Policy Institute’s Jack Hoadley provides some context – and strong evidence that the 3Rs are in place to protect beneficiaries and taxpayers – not bail out health plans.
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.
