Tag: state insurance regulation

Stakeholder Perspectives on CMS’s 2025 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters: State Insurance Departments and Marketplaces

In November, the Biden administration released the proposed Notice of Benefits and Payment Parameters for plan year 2025, an annual rule setting standards for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces and health insurers. For CHIR’s third and final blog summarizing stakeholder comments on the proposed rule, Maanasa Kona and Rachel Schwab reviewed letters submitted by state insurance departments and state-based Marketplaces.

Biden Administration Sets Limits on Use of Short-Term Health Insurance Plans, But States Can Do More to Protect Consumers

A recently proposed federal rule aims to mitigate the harm of short-term insurance plans, products exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s consumer protections. In a post for the Commonwealth Fund, Justin Giovannelli, Kevin Lucia, and Christina L. Goe explain the proposed federal rule and describe what else states can do to further protect their residents.

New Georgetown Report and Issue Brief on Outpatient Facility Fee Billing and State Policy Responses

Consumers are increasingly being exposed to a new expense when they seek outpatient medical care: hospital facility fees. In a new report and issue brief supported by West Health, CHIR’s Christine Monahan, Karen Davenport, and Rachel Swindle explore outpatient facility fee billing in the commercial sector, including the impact of these fees on consumers and how states are responding.

The ACA’s Preventive Services Benefit Is in Jeopardy: What Can States Do to Preserve Access?

A federal judge is poised to gut one of the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) preventive services requirement, potentially cutting off millions of peoples’ access to crucial care such as flu shots and cancer screenings. In a post for the Commonwealth Fund, CHIR researchers look at states that have codified the ACA’s preventive service requirement, identifying gaps and opportunities to bolster state-level protections.

New Georgetown Report Reviews State Efforts to Enforce Mental Health Parity

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) aims to remove insurance-related obstacles to mental health and substance use disorder treatment, but inadequate compliance has raised questions about health plan enrollees’ ability to access critical behavioral health services. In a new issue brief, CHIR experts look at current barriers to effective state enforcement and identify opportunities to improve MHPAEA compliance.

Response to Deceptive Marketing of Limited Plans Shows States Can Take Proactive Steps to Protect Consumers

Last month the Texas Department of Insurance issued a consent order dissolving Texas-based Triada Assurance Holdings, operating under the name Salvasen Health, which marketed and sold their fixed indemnity plans to 65,000 consumers nationwide, advertising their products as comprehensive coverage. CHIR’s Madeline O’Brien looks at is Salvasen’s deceptive practices and state responses to mitigate harm to consumers.

States Leaning In: Colorado

This year several states have taken an increasingly active role in expanding health insurance coverage, overseeing their insurance markets, and protecting consumers. Perhaps no state did more in 2019 than Colorado, which enacted a dizzying array of health insurance bills. CHIR’s Rachel Schwab takes a look in this installment of States Leaning In.

States Leaning In: Washington Doubles Down on Efforts to Shore up Market, Protect Consumers

In the wake of federal actions to roll back the Affordable Care Act’s reforms, states have assumed an even greater role in protecting consumers and ensuring market stability. Washington State, a long-time leader in state health insurance reform, has taken up that mantle. Since our last post highlighting Washington’s policy playbook, the state has implemented several more policies to preserve their insurance market and bolster consumer protections. CHIR’s Rachel Schwab takes a look at some of the state’s new developments.

Trump Administration Pushes for Sale of Insurance Across State Lines

Recently, the Trump administration issued a request for information (RFI) seeking recommendations on ways to facilitate the sale of insurance across state lines, allowing insurers to bypass the insurance standards of states that have strong consumer protections and benefit requirements by headquartering in a state with few regulations in place. The policy is often touted as a way to reduce the cost of coverage and improve consumer choice, but states and insurers have been reluctant to embrace it. A CHIR study conducted after the ACA was signed into law sheds light on why.

Shopping for a Short-Term Plan? The Information You Get about it Will Depend on Your State

Stakeholders have expressed mixed views on the value of short-term limited duration insurance. However, most seem to agree that, at a minimum, consumers should know what they are purchasing. States have the authority to require insurers to provide disclosures in addition to the federal minimum standard. We looked at short-term disclosures in four states – Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and Washington – and found that a wide spectrum exists regarding the amount of detail states require their insurers to disclose.

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.