Another ACA post, brought to you while we borrow internet so my host sister can work on TOEFL prep. If this doesn't interest you, please ignore!
July 14, 2014
Day Two. I actually kind of enjoyed my efforts of Day One,
so I’m feeling positive going into an amendment to the Public Health Service
Act. Let’s get to it!
This is part of that section that prohibits insurers from
refusing to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. From my recollection,
this was a huge deal. This part also talks about how insurance eligibility
can’t be affected by:
-
health status
-
medical condition (physical and mental)
-
claims experience
-
receipt of health care
-
medical history
-
genetic information
-
evidence of insurability (including conditions
arising out of acts of domestic violence)
-
disability
-
anything else the secretary says
These factors also apply to continued eligibility. So if I’m
eligible one year and am diagnosed with a chronic condition, my insurer can’t
boot me the next year.
I think the domestic violence notation is particularly
interesting. I suppose this means that if someone experiences intimate partner
violence and can’t access her or his home to get insurance information, she or
he can’t be determined ineligible. Does that seem right?
Page 91 includes talk about wellness programs. They’re not
allowed to be “a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health status factor”
or “highly suspect” in their methods. I’m digging the sinister language.
SUBTERFUGE.
Some kind of 10-state demonstration of wellness programs
should have started by July 1 of this year. Or a demonstration of states
applying the provisions to existing health-promotion programs? I’m not entirely
clear on what’s being demonstrated on p. 93.
Bronze, silver, gold and platinum plans: These designations
refer to how much the health care benefits are worth (compared with the actual
cost of services). For bronze it’s 60 percent, for silver it’s 70, gold is 80
and platinum is 90. From what I can tell, catastrophic plans are allowed if you
meet certain criteria (younger than 30 and poor, it appears).
Abortions: not paid for by federal funds, ever. It looks
like insurance companies aren’t required to pay for them, but I need to verify
with section 1303 and the “special rules.” I know the U.S. pays for them for
military members in case of rape. I’m not sure what the rest of the rules are.
But as always, in general, no abortion funding.
It looks like states can make their own abortion rules for
community health insurance plans, as long as no federal funding goes to them.
Something funny is happening on page 124. This is an
amendment about optional services, and it says the secretary, when estimating
basic costs, can’t take into account “any cost reduction estimated to result
from such services, including prenatal care, delivery or postnatal care.” What
I’m getting is that the secretary isn’t allowed to look at the future benefits
of having insurance coverage for these “extra” services. Right? My brain
flagged this because it seems to suggest that even when there’s good scientific
evidence about future benefits of investing in care now, the government can’t
calculate them in looking at costs of service.
BUT this is referring to actuarial costs (remember how
“actuary” is always the No. 1 job on those “best jobs” lists?), so maybe this
is more about accounting rules than public health.
As everyone probably knows, these exchanges are called
American Health Benefit Exchanges. Another program exists to help small
businesses, the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP, naturally).
Note: insurers aren’t allowed to market their plans in such
a way that would discourage people with significant health needs from
enrolling. Insurers are also supposed to include providers in their network who
serve low-income, medically underserved people. Sounds like a good thing.
Also, the much-talked-about government portal for insurers
is supposed to allow us to compare plans based on ratings by those enrolled.
Plans should have annual enrollment periods (with
exceptions), as employer-provided insurance typically does. If you’re an
American Indian, there are special monthly enrollment periods for you.
Exchanges have to be government agencies or nonprofits
established by states. I’m trying to determine whether there are other examples
of the latter bit. Is it common? What other nonprofits are established by
states?
Dental insurers are allowed to offer their plans through the
exchanges, as long as they provide pediatric dental benefits.
Several sections have
discussed “child-only plans” for those younger than 21. I think insurers are
required to provide these plans, but I’m not sure why. So parents have to get
full insurance for their kids even if they themselves qualify for catastrophic?
Must investigate.
State power: States can require their insurers to provide
additional benefits, but they have to work to defray the cost to the consumer.
The health exchanges are supposed to be self-sustaining as
of Jan. 1, 2015.
On p. 144, the measure states that health exchanges “shall
not utilize any funds intended for the administrative and operational expenses
of the Exchange for staff retreats, promotional giveaways, excessive executive
compensation, or promotion of Federal or State legislative and regulatory
modifications.”
That’s kind of specific, right? I totally feel like
government agencies would justify using their proceeds on “staff retreats.” And
I wonder what determines “excessive executive compensation”? I suppose you’d
have to be called out on this to get caught. Also, the exchanges are supposed
to report “monies lost to waste, fraud and abuse” on their Internet websites.
Health plans must justify premium increases before they’re
implemented, and they have to “prominently post” the increases on their
websites.
If you’re in jail or in the U.S. illegally, you’re excluded
from all of this.
OK, that’s all for today! I wanted to hit 80 pages since I
could feel my momentum waning. There was some interesting stuff today, though I
wouldn’t call any of it surprising.
We’re ending on p. 161, at “Sec. 1313. Financial Integrity.”
Are you as excited as I am? (Here’s a preview: exchanges are supposed to do
accurate accounting. THE FUN NEVER STOPS.)