Health Reform | HealthyCal - Part 3
 

Posts Tagged health reform

  

Feds give consumers right to independent appeal

By Daniel Weintraub

The Obama Administration has rolled out new rules giving consumers the right to an independent appeal when a health insurance company denies their claim, a system similar to one that has been in place in California for many years.

Under the federal plan, which will be phased in beginning next year, consumers will have to appeal to their insurance company first when their claim is denied. If the company won’t budge, the consumer can get a second review from an independent arbiter with the insurance company paying for the appeal, and paying the claim in full if the consumer prevails.

A system similar to this has been part of California law since 1998.

But unlike the California statute, the federal rules will also allow consumers an independent appeal when insurance companies try to cancel their coverage. The feds will also require that any decision be written in clear language that consumers can understand.

The system will take effect next year and cover an estimated 40 million people who have coverage through an employer or buy it themselves. By 2013 about 90 million people are expected to be covered by the rules.

Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis Borzi told reporters the appeals protections don’t apply to health plans that were in place when Obama signed the health reform law, or to large employers who pay for their health costs directly, without insurance.

 

Fiorina on health reform: repeal, then replace

By Daniel Weintraub

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett Packard CEO running against Barbara Boxer for the United States Senate, wants to repeal the health care bill enacted this year by Congress and President Obama. The new law, Fiorina predicts, will cost the taxpayers more than advertised, do nothing to rein in health care costs and make it more difficult for people to find a doctor.

In an interview, Fiorina said she wants Congress to replace the bill with a more modest set of individual initiatives designed to solve specific problems rather than a comprehensive bill to overhaul the entire health care industry.

“A funny thing happened on the path to health care reform,” Fiorina said. “It started out being a discussion about making quality, affordable health care accessible to everyone. And I agree with those goals. And along the way it became health insurance reform…What we now have actually doesn’t solve any of the problems that true health care reform was intended to solve.”

Carly Fiorina. Photo from Agencia Brasil.

Fiorina said the 2,600-page reform plan seeks to “boil the ocean” rather than target the most serious problems in the current system with narrowly crafted solutions.

Despite her differences with the Democrats’ plan, though, Fiorina’s positions on health reform are not all in line with Republican or conservative dogma. For example, she favors allowing the importation of drugs from Canada, a practice many conservatives say would amount to de facto price controls, since Canada’s government controls drug prices and those prices, being below market in the U.S, would set the new standard here.

Fiorina also favors a government solution to the problem of people being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Rather than requiring insurers to cover everyone regardless of their medical history, Fiorina says she would likes the idea of a high-risk pool for those who are denied coverage. The health reform does that as a temporary measure until 2014, but then replaces the state-run pools being created this year with a requirement that insurers cover everyone.

“People with preexisting conditions who should be able to get coverage can’t,” Fiorina said. “Lets tackle that specific problem. You could do it in a variety of ways. You could create a high-risk pool. You could subsidize the high-risk pool. You could force insurance companies to participate in the high-risk pool. And you could solve that problem. Would it cost some money? Of course. But it wouldn’t cost this much money.”

Expand community clinics

Fiorina’s position on expanding access to care for low-income Americans also relies less on the insurance industry and more on direct or indirect provision of health care by the government. She says she would like to see a major expansion of community clinics. The bill does that, but Fiorina says it does not go far enough. Most low-income people who can’t get care elsewhere should be able to go to a clinic, a solution Fiorina believes is far simpler, and probably less expensive, than having a private insurance policy subsidized for them by the government.

“If you have a population, of whatever the number is who are not able to get care, then deal with that problem,” she said. “There’s a big difference between insurance and care. If we had more low-cost clinics available for routine care, somebody doesn’t need health insurance to go get them, they can go use services and those clinics can be subsidized. That’s a very different approach than what we did in this bill.”

She also said: “We know if people have access to low-cost clinics for routine care they will take advantage of them. Most people who go to an emergency room for a fever don’t go there because it’s what they choose, its because that’s all they have available to them.”

Medicare cost-savings won’t happen

Fiorina said she does not believe that the cost-savings the bill envisions for Medicare will ever materialize.

“While I think everyone would applaud the notion that we need to root out fraud, waste and abuse, I know you don’t do that unless someone is accountable for doing that. What are our goals, what are our metrics, who’s in charge? How will we know if we are getting it done? None of that is in place. Five-hundred billion dollars won’t just magically disappear from Medicare. In fact the president just recently said we need to put $500 billion into Medicare. Costs are going up, not down. We didn’t solve that problem.”

Fiorina, who was diagnosed with Stage 2 breast cancer last year and treated with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, said she believes one answer to cutting costs is to develop more “integrated care” and to give doctors incentives to follow practices proven through clinical studies to be the most effective.

Fiorina has insurance through United Health Care and was treated at the Stanford Medical Center, considered a top cancer treatment facility.

“The people who cared for me were unbelievably wonderful,” she said. “The fact that I lived so close to one of the premier cancer centers in the world, how blessed am I? But in terms of, I’m not, I’m not picking on Stanford because they are a wonderful facility, but there are many, many opportunities for more efficient and therefore less costly processes, if there was a focus on patient-centered care and integrated care.”

When she went to the hospital for her chemotherapy infusions, she said, her blood pressure was taken numerous times on each visit.

“It made absolutely no difference in my care,” she said. “It deteriorated the quality of my experience and it cost a helluva lot of money.”

To save money, Fiorina said, Congress should adopt caps on malpractice judgments the way California did in the 1970s. That would lower costs for the malpractice insurance doctors must buy while also reducing the practice of “defensive medicine” that prompts some physicians to order every possible test and procedure to make sure they are covered in case a patient later sues.

Beyond that, Fiorina is a fan of the kind of incentive-based health plan that the Safeway grocery chain has adopted in recent years for its non-union employees.

Tie health insurance premiums to behavior

“We know that when peoples cost of health care is tied to the healthy choices they make, they make better choices,” she said. “At Safeway if you’re a smoker, the cost of your co-pay is increased. If an employee is told the cost of your co-pay will go down if you quit smoking, guess what, they’ve had pretty good success with people quitting smoking. They’ve had good success with people getting their weight under control. In other words, tie healthy choices and prevention to the cost of health care in a way that benefits the individual and benefits the system.”

Fiorina said she favors allowing consumers to import drugs from Canada that have been shipped there from the United States. She thinks the Democrats who negotiated the details of the reform plan gave up on that idea as a way to gain drug industry support for the comprehensive measure.

“Why shouldn’t we have competition for pharmaceuticals?” she asked. “Why shouldn’t people be able to import drugs from Canada? I’m all for it. And yet that deal, that opportunity to lower costs was taken off the table because the pharmaceuticals came to the table early on and said, ‘We’ll support health care reform.’”

One popular aspect of the bill Fiorina doesn’t like is its provision requiring insurance companies to cover children on their parents’ plan until the age of 26. She sees the mandate as unnecessary and probably something that undermines personal responsibility.

“When I was 26 years old, I recognize I’m not the same as everyone else, but I was worried about making my own living, not going on my parents health insurance plan,” she said. “I’m not saying it’s not a good thing for some people. But I’m not sure that it’s an unalloyed good. If you dealt with the issue of making sure people with pre-existing conditions are able to get coverage and care, if you dealt with some of the central issues, I’m not sure you would even consider that a desirable thing.”

 

Senate passes bills to create high-risk pool

By Daniel Weintraub

The state Senate has passed legislation to create a high-risk insurance pool for people who have been denied private coverage because of previous medical conditions.

The pool, which will be financed with $760 million in federal money, is the first tangible impact from the passage of federal health reform earlier this year.

It will be a temporary program, set to expire in January 2014 when insurance companies will be required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their medical history.

Until then, people who have been denied coverage will be able to apply for insurance through the state-run, federally financed high-risk pool.

The state already manages a pool that covers about 5,000 people who couldn’t find insurance any other way. But by some estimates, between 400,000 and 800,000 Californians may be in this predicament.

The new federal money is expected to help cover 20,000 to 25,000 additional people, depending on how the program is structured.

The federal plan requires states to limit an individual’s out of pocket costs to just under $6,000 per year. But many of the other details are left up to the states.

SB 227, by Sen. Elaine Alquist, creates the pool and grants authority to a state board to set eligibility standards, premiums and cost sharing for the program. AB 1887, by Assemblyman Michael Villines, establishes the financing for the program and states that California must not be liable for costs beyond what the federal government is providing.

California’s current program helps consumers buy insurance through two private companies, Kaiser and Anthem Blue Cross. If those or other companies do not volunteer to participate in the expansion, the state is planning to hire an administrator to arrange for and pay for health services directly, according to an Assembly staff analysis of AB 1887.

Both bills passed on bipartisan votes and were sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said he would sign them.

 

Obama Administration issues first health reform regs

The Obama Administration today issued the first regulations implementing what will be known as the “Patients’ Bill of Rights” — requiring health insurance companies to follow new rules on benefits for consumers with insurance coverage.

The regulations give children better access to insurance, give everyone with benefits more flexibility in choosing a doctor, and begin to phase out the ability of insurance companies to place annual or lifetime caps on the value of benefits.

The regulations begin the implementation of the health reform bill passed earlier this year. Most of the new rules take effect Sept. 23. The highlights:

–Insurance companies will be banned from excluding coverage for children under age 19 based on pre-existing medical conditions. By 2014, this rule will apply to all Americans. In the meantime, adults will get access to an expanded high-risk pool if they are denied coverage.

–Limits on rescinding coverage. Insurance companies and health plans will be prohibited from rescinding coverage except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation on an application. Currently insurers can and do revoke coverage, even retroactively, for people who make unintentional errors on their application.

–No lifetime limits on coverage. The regulations prohibit the capping of lifetime benefits on all policies issued or renewed after Sept. 23, 2010.

–Phase out of annual limits. Annual caps on benefits will be phased out over three years, until 2014, when most such limits will be banned. Coverage issued or renewed beginning Sept. 23 will be allowed to set limits no lower than $750,000. The minimum will be raised to $1.25 million in 2011 and $2 million in 2012. The limits apply to all employer-based plans and all new individual market plans.

–Choice of doctors. The rules require insurers to let members choose any primary care doctor that is part of the plan’s network and has space available. Insurers will also be prohibited from requiring a referral for OB-GYN care.

–Emergency rooms. Insurers will be prohibited from requiring prior approval for emergency room visits and imposing higher cost-sharing on visits to ERs that are out-of-network.

To see more on the new rules and health reform in general, see this White House fact sheet.

 

Assembly approves bill to expand coverage for people with pre-existing conditions

California lawmakers have taken the first steps toward putting in place a part of the federal health reform designed to make it easier for people with previous medical conditions to buy insurance.

The Assembly on Monday passed AB 1887, by Assemblyman Mike Villines, which will make California eligible for about $760 million in federal money over the next three and a half years to manage an insurance pool for high-risk consumers and subsidize their coverage.

Starting in 2014, insurance companies will be required to offer coverage to everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

The state already manages a pool that covers about 5,000 people who couldn’t find insurance any other way. But by some estimates, between 400,000 and 800,000 Californians may be in this predicament.

The federal money is expected to help cover 20,000 to 25,000 additional people, depending on how the program is structured.

The federal plan requires states to limit individual’s out of pocket costs to just under $6,000 per year. But many of the other details are left up to the states. A companion bill, SB 227, by Sen. Elaine Alquist, grants authority to a state board to set eligibility standards, premiums and cost sharing.

California’s current program helps consumers buy insurance through two private companies, Kaiser and Anthem Blue Cross. If those or other companies do not volunteer to participate in the expansion, the state is planning to hire an administrator to arrange for and pay for health services directly, according to an Assembly staff analysis of AB 1887.

 

Republican nominees want to undo federal health bill

Independent opinion polls show that a majority of Californians back federal health reform, but Tuesday’s primary election results will put those surveys to the test this fall. The two business executives Republicans nominated for governor and U.S. Senate both oppose the federal bill and have vowed to try to undo it.

Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has said she would urge the attorney general to join other states in challenging the law. And at a rally in Modesto last week, Whitman made it personal, calling on current AG Jerry Brown — now the Democratic nominee for governor — to bring California into the litigation. She complains that the measure will be an unfunded mandate on the state and a burden on small business.

Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who won the Republican nomination to face US Sen. Barbara Boxer in the fall, says she wants to “repeal and replace” the health care reform with a more modest set of changes aimed at increasing competition in the health care market, cracking down on frivolous lawsuits and making sure that no one is denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Brown and Boxer will no doubt defend the bill as the campaign unfolds. There will be many other issues debated between now and November, and the governor’s race will probably pivot on matters closer to home. But if the two business execs and political newcomers win in the fall, part of the message will be that California voters are not as happy about the new health care law as opinion polls suggested.

I’ll be following this angle during the campaign and looking to both candidates for more details on their positions on the issue.

–Daniel Weintraub

 

Cali urged to start early on new health insurance exchange

The top state insurance executive in Massachusetts urged California lawmakers Wednesday to “start early” in building a new health insurance exchange that will be at the center of the state’s implementation of the federal health reform passed in March.

Jon Kingsdale is executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, which plays the same role in Massachusetts that the new insurance exchange will play in California. The exchange will serve as a government-supervised market where individuals and small employers can purchase insurance, many of them using tax credits and subsidies.

Kingsdale said it took Massachusetts four years to establish the exchange at the heart of the Bay State’s insurance program, and Massachusetts started with several advantages over California. The state had far fewer uninsured people, already required insurers to cover everyone without regard to pre-exisiting health conditions, and its programs for the poor and the children of the working poor were integrated.

“It’s not too early to begin,” Kingsdale told a joint hearing of the Senate and Assembly health committees.

Under the federal law, Kingsdale said, the exchange can be anything from a passive information bank and online sales site to an aggressive regulator of benefits, rates and insurance company practices.

California already has two agencies that regulate insurers and health plans, the Department of Insurance and the Department of Managed Health Care. Kingsdale cautioned legislators not to try to create a third. But he also said simply listing all the carriers and the benefits they offer in California would not be much help to consumers.

“That would be about as useful as the automated Yellow Pages,” he said.

The middle ground, he said, is to use the exchange to reduce administrative costs, increase competition, standardize benefits and give consumers power by making it easy for them to compare plans and their prices.

Kingsdale said he has been stopped on the street and thanked for the simplicity of the Massachusetts web site through which residents can buy their coverage. The plans are grouped by benefit structure and rated either “gold,” “silver” or “bronze” depending on their level of benefits.

“We make it easy for buyers to shop on price and quality,” he said.

He said the state should be selective in the carriers it allows into the exchange but still err on the side of having too many rather than too few options for consumers. He said legislators and administrators should not assume they know what kind of plans consumers will want to buy. Instead, let them vote with their dollars, he said.

The biggest risk to California in setting up its exchange, he said, was dealing with the job of automating the distribution of subsidies and tax credits. He said that would be a “Herculean task.” He suggested that if the state allows its 58 counties to continue to administer the state’s subsidized insurance programs, the result could be a logistical nightmare.
Sen. Elaine Alquist, chairwoman of the Senate Health Committee, said the exchange, with a potential 8 million customers, is going to be “one of the major pieces” of the new health system brought about by the federal reform.
“How the exchange functions,” she said, “is going to be crucial to ensuring that federal health reform is successful in California.”

 

Explaining health reform: new insurance exchange will play major role

By Daniel Weintraub

It will be years before the new health insurance exchange at the heart of the federal health reform passed in March rolls out in California. But decisions being made now could shape how that exchange looks and works, the health benefits it makes available to consumers, how much Californians pay for their coverage and the roles played by the government and the private insurance industry.

Democrats in the California Legislature have signaled with their early proposals that will try to create an exchange with a large dose of government intervention, with a board appointed by the governor and state lawmakers that would have the power to set benefits, rates, and cost-sharing and regulate the administrative costs of insurance companies that want to sell their policies through the exchange.

The idea behind the exchange is to provide a place for individuals and small businesses to pool their risk and gain the kind of market power now available only to large groups like government and big private employers.

The exchange could simply be a bare-bones online marketplace where insurers list their products and buyers come to make purchases. Or it could be something that begins to resemble the “public option” that Democrats were pushing during the debate over federal reform but eventually dropped before their bill gained final passage.

Assembly Bill 1602 by Assembly Speaker John Perez will be the vehicle for the Assembly’s version of the exchange, at least for now. In the Senate, SB 900, by Health Committee chairwoman Elaine Alquist, is the bill to watch.

AB 1602 is the more ambitious of the measures at the moment.

The exchange in AB 1602 would, at a minimum:

–Certify health insurance companies to participate in the exchange, and decertify those that were no longer allowed to sell their products through this pool;

–Operate a toll-free telephone hotline for consumers who need assistance;

–Maintain an Internet web site where consumers could get standardized information to compare the plans;

–Create an electronic calculator consumers can use to determine the full cost of their coverage, including premiums, deductibles and co-payments;

–Rate the available plans;

–Inform consumers about eligibility requirements for public programs such as Medi-Cal or Healthy Families and enroll them in those programs if they qualify.

But those are only the basic duties the bill envisions for the exchange. The exchange could also do much more, if the state determines that federal law allows it. The expanded duties include:

–Determine who is eligible to buy insurance through the exchange;

–Set standards and selection criteria for health plans that want to sell through the exchange, including setting “reasonable limits” on their administrative expenses;

–Determine the scope of coverage for consumers who buy insurance through the exchange;

–Set premium schedules, process applications, collect premiums, and administer subsidies to low-income consumers and rates paid to the insurance companies;

–Determine the rates paid to the health plans and approve cost-sharing provisions for consumers;

The potential scope of the proposed exchange — setting benefit levels and regulating rates, cost-sharing and administrative costs — has raised eyebrows within the insurance industry. In a letter to the Assembly Health Committee, the California Association of Health Plans raised questions about the bill, suggesting that it might go beyond what is allowed under federal law.

“All of these details point towards an Exchange that is intended to be at its core a purchaser of services,” wrote Charles Bacchi, the association’s executive vice president.

In an interview, Bacchi said the group had not yet taken a position on AB 1602 but views that bill and its Senate counterpart as crucial to shaping the future of health insurance in California.

“These are very important decisions,” he said. “It is really about much, much more than just complying with federal law. It a fundamental decision about what the market looks like in the future in California. The federal subsidies come through in 2015, but the decisions we make today and next year and the year after will build up how this exchanges handles people purchasing insurance, how it handles the subsidies, the basic nature of the exchange and how it’s governed.”

Peter Harbage, a health policy consultant who has closely followed the health reform debate and legislation, said he thinks the federal law is broad enough to allow California to create an exchange with vast powers over the insurance industry.

“My sense is that the federal language in a lot of these cases is really just a floor,” Harbage said. “It is very broad. It talks about a limited role for the exchanges but there is nothing by design to preclude the staes from being more aggressive with their oversight, their contracting, what they want insurance companies to provide in order to be a part of the exchange. Insurers don’t have to participate if they don’t want to, if they think the requirements are too strong.”

 
 
 

Home | Cal Health Report | Community Report | Legislation | Ideas | Forums | About Us

©2013 HealthyCal.org