Pagers, AI, And Google: 3 Tales Of Technology And Medicine
As a society, we owe technology applause for helping improve our medical abilities tenfold. Today, we thought it would be fun to take a look back on how technological advancements have succeeded in making our medicine better than ever, and how they continue to do so. Take a moment of your time to read this article from Forbes on Pagers, AI, and Google.
Medicine and technological advancement have been intimately intertwined, from the invention of the stethoscope to the latest innovations in MRI scanning. But the road isn’t always smooth. There can be interesting bumps and glitches along the way, as illustrated by these three recent stories.
1) Old tech can linger
The Guardian recently reported that the UK National Health Service uses more than 10% of the world’s pagers. The pagers cost £6.6 million ($8.9 million) per year. Furthermore, the UK will soon only have one provider of pagers nationwide after Vodafone exits the market.
One critic noted, “Taxpayers will wonder why the NHS is spending millions on outdated technology, especially at a time when savings need to be made.”
As a young doctor in the 1990s, I carried a pager. But nowadays, most physicians I know use cell phones to take emergency calls. However, The Guardian notes that there are still a few advantages to pagers, namely:
...[S]lightly more reliability. Where mobile phone networks can be patchy, or slow, or overloaded, the separate paging network offers a modest improvement in reception and reach, especially in rural areas. Compared with modern smartphones, pager batteries also last much longer.
I can see pagers lingering on for special niche applications. But for most people, their time has passed.
By Jakez (Own work), Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.An old pager/beeper.
2) New tech can be overhyped
I believe that artificial intelligence (AI) will some day have a major impact in the practice of medicine. But STAT News reporters Casey Ross and Ike Swetlitz have described how the IBM Watson AI system “isn’t living up to the lofty expectations IBM created for it.”
Specifically, the Watson for Oncology was intended to help improve cancer care by helping physician with treatment recommendations based on the best available worldwide data
Ross and Swetlitz reported:
While it has emphatically marketed Watson for cancer care, IBM hasn’t published any scientific papers demonstrating how the technology affects physicians and patients. As a result, its flaws are getting exposed on the front lines of care by doctors and researchers who say that the system, while promising in some respects, remains undeveloped...
Perhaps the most stunning overreach is in the company’s claim that Watson for Oncology, through artificial intelligence, can sift through reams of data to generate new insights and identify, as an IBM sales rep put it, “even new approaches” to cancer care. STAT found that the system doesn’t create new knowledge and is artificially intelligent only in the most rudimentary sense of the term.
Because of problems with Watson, the highly-regarded MD Anderson Cancer Center (part of the University of Texas) cancelled its partnership with Watson “amid internal allegations of overspending, delays, and mismanagement.”
I still believe that AI will revolutionize medical care, even if specific products might not (yet) be ready for prime time. I take heart in the fact that the Apple Newton was also a product not ready for prime time — but it did set the stage for the much more successful Apple iPhone and the current mobile technology revolution. Similarly, I think the long-term future of medical AI remains bright, even if specific products may struggle to meet expectations.
3) Current technology can alter the doctor-patient relationship in unexpected ways
Many patients routinely use search engines like Google to find good doctors or to learn more about their physician’s professional qualifications. But to what extent should doctors be searching for information on their patients?
Erene Stergiopoulos discusses this issue in a fascinating essay, “Getting Googled by Your Doctor”:
Searching for patients’ information online gives physicians a way to gather collateral data about a patient who either cannot or will not communicate important clinical information, says Paul Appelbaum, a psychiatrist, professor at Columbia University, and world expert in medical ethics and the law...
That online collateral information is especially useful [in the acute setting, Applebaum] says, where patients may be psychotic, intoxicated, or suicidal. In these acute settings, social media can provide clinicians with valuable context to make decisions — whether the patient uses drugs or alcohol, has self-harmed, or has family support...
However, Stergiopoulos notes that patients can feel betrayed if content from their social media posts ends up in their medical record without their consent.
Furthermore, this can create medico-legal problems:
As more and more providers Google to guide their decisions, they may be shifting the clinical standards to which all practitioners are held... If practitioners neglect that standard, and something preventable goes wrong, they risk accusations of malpractice. In other words, if patient-targeted online searches become the new standard of care, then clinicians could become liable for information patients post online. If a patient leaves a suicidal message on Facebook, and the clinician misses it, there’s a future — seemingly more plausible by the day — in which that clinician could be sued for malpractice if the patient then attempts suicide.
In informal discussions with other health professionals, some colleagues have said they never Google their patients. Others do so selectively. Yet others consider it a legitimate part of conscientious medical practice. And some physicians feel strongly that if patients can Google their doctors, they as physicians should similarly be able to Google their patients.
Clearly, this is an area where medical and legal standards are still evolving. In the meantime, if patients are uncomfortable with their physicians Googling them, they might wish to make their preferences clear ahead of time, before they and their doctor suffer a misunderstanding.
Despite Boost In Social Security, Rising Medicare Part B Costs Leave Seniors In Bind
How are the rising costs of Medicare Part B affecting Seniors? Don't be left in the dark. Find out more in this article.
Millions of seniors will soon be notified that Medicare premiums for physicians’ services are rising and likely to consume most of the cost-of-living adjustment they’ll receive next year from Social Security.
Higher 2018 premiums for Medicare Part B will hit older adults who’ve been shielded from significant cost increases for several years, including large numbers of low-income individuals who struggle to make ends meet.
“In effect, this means that increases in Social Security benefits will be minimal, for a third year, for many people, putting them in a bind,” said Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy consultant at the Senior Citizens League. In a new study, her organization estimates that seniors have lost one-third of their buying power since 2000 as Social Security cost-of-living adjustments have flattened and health care and housing costs have soared.
Another, much smaller group of high-income older adults will also face higher Medicare Part B premiums next year because of changes enacted in 2015 federal legislation.
Here’s a look at what’s going on and who’s affected:
The Basics
Medicare Part B is insurance that covers physicians’ services, outpatient care in hospitals and other settings, durable medical equipment such as wheelchairs or oxygen machines, laboratory tests, and some home health care services, among other items. Coverage is optional, but 91 percent of Medicare enrollees — including millions of people with serious disabilities — sign up for the program. (Those who don’t sign up are responsible for charges for these services on their own.)
Premiums, which change annually, represent about 25 percent of Medicare Part B’s expected per-beneficiary program spending. The government pays the remainder.
In fiscal 2017, federal spending for Medicare Part B came to $193 billion. From 2017 to 2024, Part B premiums are projected to rise an average 5.4 percent each year, faster than other parts of Medicare.
‘Hold Harmless’ Provisions
To protect seniors living on fixed incomes, a “hold harmless” provision in federal law prohibits Medicare from raising Part B premiums if doing so would end up reducing an individual’s Social Security benefits.
This provision applies to about 70 percent of people enrolled in Part B. Included are seniors who’ve been enrolled in Medicare for most of the past year and whose Part B premiums are automatically deducted from their Social Security checks.
Excluded are seniors who are newly enrolled in Medicare or those dually enrolled in Medicaid or enrolled in Medicare Savings Programs. (Under this circumstance, Medicaid, a joint federal-state program, pays Part B premiums.) Also excluded are older adults with high incomes who pay more for Part B because of Income-Related Monthly Adjustments (see more on this below).
Recent Experience
Since there was no cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security in 2016, Part B monthly premiums didn’t go up that year for seniors covered by hold harmless provisions. Instead, premiums for this group remained flat at $104.90 — where they’ve been for the previous three years.
Last year, Social Security gave recipients a tiny 0.3 percent cost-of-living increase. As a result, average 2017 Part B month premiums rose slightly, to $109, for seniors in the hold harmless group. The 2017 monthly premium average, paid by those who weren’t in this group and who therefore pay full freight, was $134.
Current Situation
Social Security is due to announce cost-of-living adjustments for 2018 in mid-October. Based on the best information available, it appears to be considering an adjustment of about 2.2 percent, according to Juliette Cubanski, associate director of the program on Medicare policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is another, independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.)
Apply a 2.2 percent adjustment to the average $1,360 monthly check received by Social Security recipients and they’d get an extra $29.92 in monthly payments.
For their part, the board of trustees of Medicare have indicated that Part B monthly premiums are likely to remain stable at about $134 a month next year. (Actual premium amounts should be disclosed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within the next four to six weeks.)
Medicare has the right to impose that charge, so long as the amount that seniors receive from Social Security isn’t reduced in the process. So, the program is expected to ask older adults who paid $109 this year to pay $134 for Part B coverage next year — an increase of $25 a month.
Subtract that extra $25 charge for Part B premiums from seniors’ average $29.92 monthly Social Security increase and all that be left would be an extra $4.92 each month for expenses such as food, housing, medication and transportation.
“Many seniors are going to be disappointed,” said Lisa Swirsky, a policy adviser at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Higher Income Brackets
Under the principle that those who have more can afford to pay more, Part B premium surcharges for higher-income Medicare beneficiaries have been in place since 2007. These Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amounts (IMRAA) surcharges vary, depending on the income bracket that individuals and married couples are in. Nearly 3 million Medicare members paid the surcharges in 2015.
For the past decade this is how surcharges have worked:
Bracket One: Individuals with incomes of $85,001 to $107,000 were charged 35 percent of Part B per-beneficiary costs, resulting in 2017 premiums of $187.50.
Bracket Two: Incomes of $107,001 to $160,000 were charged 50 percent, resulting in 2017 premiums of $267.90.
Bracket Three: Incomes of $160,001 to $214,000 were charged 65 percent, resulting in 2017 premiums of $348.30
Bracket Four: Incomes of more than $214,000 were charged 80 percent, resulting in 2017 premiums of $428.60.
(Information for married couples who file jointly can be found here.)
Now, under legislation passed in 2015, brackets two, three and four are adopting lower income thresholds, a move that could raise premiums for hundreds of thousands of seniors. Bracket two will now consist of individuals with incomes of $107,001 to $133,500; bracket three will consist of individuals making $133,501 to 160,000; and bracket four will include individuals making more than $160,000. (Thresholds for couples have been altered as well.)
As John Grobe, president of Federal Career Experts, a consulting firm, noted in a blog post, this change “will add another layer of complexity” to higher-income individuals’ decisions regarding “electing Part B.”
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Graham J. (5 October 2017). "Despite Boost In Social Security, Rising Medicare Part B Costs Leave Seniors In Bind" [web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://khn.org/news/despite-boost-in-social-security-rising-medicare-part-b-costs-leave-seniors-in-bind/
New Regulations Broadening Employer Exemptions to Contraceptive Coverage: Impact on Women
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Sobel L., Salganicoff A., Rosenzweig C. (6 October 2017). "New Regulations Broadening Employer Exemptions to Contraceptive Coverage: Impact on Women" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/new-regulations-broadening-employer-exemptions-to-contraceptive-coverage-impact-on-women/
The Trump Administration has issued new regulations that significantly broaden employers’ ability to be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage requirement. The regulation opens the door for any employer or college/ university with a student health plan with objections to contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs to qualify for an exemption. Any nonprofit or closely-held for-profit employer with moral objections to contraceptive coverage also qualifies for an exemption. Their female employees, dependents and students will no longer be entitled to coverage for the full range of FDA approved contraceptives at no cost.
On October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration issued two new regulations greatly expanding the types of employers that may be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage requirement. These regulations are a significant departure from the Obama-era regulations that only granted an exception to houses of worship. One of the regulations allows nonprofits or for-profit employer with an objection to contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs to qualify for an exemption and drop contraceptive coverage from their plans. The other regulation also exempts all but publicly traded employers with moral objections to contraception from rule. These new policies, effective immediately, also apply to private institutions of higher education that issue student health plans. The immediate impact of these regulations on the number of women who are eligible for contraceptive coverage is unknown, but the new regulations open the door for many more employers to withhold contraceptive coverage from their plans.
Contraceptive coverage under the ACA has made access to the full range of contraceptive methods affordable to millions of women. This provision is part of a set of key preventive services that has been identified by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for women that must be covered without cost-sharing. Since it was first issued in 2012, the contraceptive coverage provision has been controversial. While very popular with the public, with over 77% of women and 64% of men reporting support for no-cost contraceptive coverage, it has been the focus of litigation brought by religious employers, with two cases (Zubik v Burwell and Burwell v Hobby Lobby) reaching the Supreme Court. This brief explains the contraceptive coverage rule under the ACA, the impact it has had on coverage, and how the new regulations issued by the Trump Administration change the contraceptive coverage requirement for employers and affect women’s coverage.
How do the new regulations change contraceptive coverage requirements for employers?
Since they were announced in 2011, the contraceptive coverage rules have evolved through litigation and new regulations. Most employers were required to include the coverage in their plans. Houses of worship could choose to be exempt from the requirement if they had religious objections. This exception meant that women workers and female dependents of exempt employers did not have guaranteed coverage for either some or all FDA approved contraceptive methods if their employer had an objection. Religiously affiliated nonprofits and closely held for-profit corporations were not eligible for an exemption, but could choose an accommodation. This option was offered to religiously affiliated nonprofit employers and then extended to closely held for-profitsafter the Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The accommodation allowed these employers to opt out of providing and paying for contraceptive coverage in their plans by either notifying their insurer, third party administrator, or the federal government of their objection. The insurers were then responsible for covering the costs of contraception, which assured that their workers and dependents had contraceptive coverage while relieving the employers of the requirement to pay for it.
As of 2015, 10% of nonprofits with 5,000 or more employees had elected for an accommodation without challenging the requirement. This approach, however, has not been acceptable to all nonprofits with religious objections.1 In May 2016, the Supreme Court remanded Zubik v. Burwell, sending seven cases brought by religious nonprofits objecting to the contraceptive coverage accommodation back to the respective district Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court instructed the parties to work together to “arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.”2
On October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration issued new regulations greatly expanding eligibility for the exemption to all nonprofit and closely-held for-profit employers with objections to contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs or moral convictions, including private institutions of higher education that issue student health plans (Figure 1). In addition, publicly traded for-profit companies with objections based on religious beliefs also qualify for an exemption. There is no guaranteed right of contraceptive coverage for their female employees and dependents or students. Table 1 presents the changes to the contraceptive coverage rule from the Obama Administration in the new Interim Final regulations issued by the Trump Administration.
Figure 1: Employers Objecting to Contraceptive Coverage: Exemptions and Accommodations Under the Trump Administration Regulations
The accommodation will be available to employers that previously qualified for the accommodation. They now will also have the choice of an exemption. The federal departments issuing the regulations posit that these new rules will have limited impact on the number of women losing contraceptive coverage. However, it is not clear how many employers previously utilizing the accommodation will now opt for an exemption, resulting in the loss of contraceptive coverage for their employees and dependents. In addition, there are also an unknown number of organizations that were not previously eligible for either the accommodation or exemption that may now opt for an exemption. These new regulations create two new categories of employers who can now qualify for an exemption or can voluntarily chooses an accommodation: 1) publicly traded for-profit companies with a religious objection and 2) nonprofit and closely held for-profit employers who have a moral objection to contraceptives, a considerably larger pool of employers than when the exemption was available only to those who were employees of a house of worship or who were eligible for an accommodation in the past.
| Table 1: Summary of Changes in the Contraceptive Coverage Regulations for Objecting Entities | ||
| Obama Administration August 2012 to October 5, 2017 |
Trump Administration Effective October 6, 2017 |
|
| What types of contraceptives must plans cover without cost-sharing? | At least one of each of the 18 FDA approved contraceptive methods for women, as prescribed, along with counseling and related services must be covered without cost-sharing. | No change |
| Are any employers “exempt” from the contraceptive mandate? |
|
|
| Who pays for contraceptive coverage for employees of organizations receiving an exemption? |
|
No change |
What type of employers may seek an “accommodation” to avoid paying for contraceptives in their plans? |
|
|
| Who pays for contraceptive coverage for employees of organizations receiving an accommodation? |
|
No change |
| When can entities change from an accommodation to an exemption? | N/A |
|
How has the contraceptive coverage rule affected women?
Contraceptive use among women is widespread, with over 99% of sexually-active women using at least one method at some point during their lifetime.3 Contraceptives make up an estimated 30-44% of out-of-pocket health care spending for women.4 Since the implementation of the ACA, out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs has decreased dramatically (Figure 2). The majority of this decline (63%) can be attributed to the drop in out-of-pocket expenses on the oral contraceptive pill for women.5 One study estimates that roughly $1.4 billion dollars per year in out-of-pocket savings on the pill resulted from the ACA’s contraceptive mandate.6 By 2013, most women had no out-of-pocket costs for their contraception, as median expenses for most contraceptive methods, including the IUD and the pill, dropped to zero.7
Figure 2: The Contraceptive Coverage Policy Has Had a Large Impact on Out-Of-Pocket Spending in a Short Amount of Time
This provision has also influenced the decisions women make in their choice of method. After implementation of the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement, women were more likely to choose any method of prescription contraceptive, with a shift towards more effective long-term methods.8 High upfront costs of long-acting methods, such as the IUD and implant, had been a barrier to women who might otherwise prefer these more effective methods. When faced with no cost-sharing, women choose these methods more often9, with significant implications for the rate of unintended pregnancy and associated costs of childbirth.10
Finally, decreases in cost-sharing were associated with better adherence and more consistent use of the pill. This was especially true among users of generic pills. One study showed that even copayments as low as $6 were associated with higher levels of discontinuation and non-adherence,11 increasing the risk of unintended pregnancy.
Do states with no-cost contraceptive coverage laws allow exemptions to objecting entities?
The federal standards under Affordable Care Act created a minimum set of preventive benefits that applied to most health plans regulated by the federal government (self-funded plans, federal employee plans) and states (individual, small and large group plans), including contraceptive coverage for women with no cost-sharing. States have also historically regulated insurance, and many have had mandated minimum benefits for decades. State laws, however, have more limited reach in that they only apply to state regulated fully insured plans, do not have jurisdiction over self-funded plans, where 61% of covered workers are insured.12 In self-funded plans, the employer assumes the risk of providing covered services and usually contracts with a third party administrator (TPA) to manage the claims payment process. These plans are overseen by the Federal Department of Labor under the Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and are only subject to federally established regulations.13 The ACA sets a minimum standard of coverage for preventive services for all plans. However, state laws regulating insurance, including contraceptive coverage, can require fully insured plans to provide coverage beyond the federal standards.
Eight states have strengthened and expanded the federal contraceptive coverage requirement (CA, IL, MD, ME, NV, NY, OR, VT). Another 20 states have contraceptive equity laws that require plans to cover contraceptives if they also provide coverage for prescription drugs but they do not necessarily require coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptives or ban cost-sharing (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Many States Have Contraceptive Coverage Requirements
Many of the 28 states that have passed contraceptive coverage laws (both equity and no-cost coverage) have a provision for exemptions, but the laws vary from state to state and only apply to fully insured plans. This means that there may be a conflict between the state and federal requirements when it comes to religious exemptions. In some states with a contraceptive coverage requirement, some employers who are eligible for an exemption under federal law will not qualify for an exemption under state law (Table 2). Employers in those states will have to have to meet the standards established by their state even though they may qualify for an exemption based on the new federal regulations. This conflict may set the stage for future litigation.
| Table 2: State Requirements for No-Cost Contraceptive Coverage | |||||||
| StateDate Effective | Applies to | Coverage required without cost sharing | Exemptions allowed | ||||
| Private plans | Medicaid | With RX all FDA approved | OTC | Vasectomy | Religious | Moral | |
| CaliforniaJanuary 2015 | X | MCOs | X | Narrowly defined nonprofit religious employers | None | ||
| IllinoisJanuary 2017 | X | X | X except male condoms |
Any employer, or insurer with a religious objection | Any employer, or insurer with a moral objection | ||
| MarylandJanuary 2018 | X | X | X | X | X | Religious organizations if the coverage conflicts with the organization’s bona fide religious beliefs and practices | None |
| MaineJanuary 2019 | X | X | Narrowly defined nonprofit religious employers | None | |||
| NevadaJanuary 2018 | X | X | X | Insurers affiliated with a religious organization | None | ||
| New YorkAugust 2017 | X | X | Narrowly defined nonprofit religious employers* | None | |||
| OregonAugust 2017 | X | X | X | Narrowly defined nonprofit religious employers | None | ||
| VermontOctober 2016 | X | X – and all other public health assistance programs | X | X | None | None | |
| NOTES: *Requires the insurer to offer a rider to policyholders so that women will have contraceptive coverage. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of state laws and regulations. |
|||||||
Conclusion
The Trump Administration’s new regulations substantially expand the exemption to nonprofit and for-profit employers, as well as to private colleges or universities with religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage. It is unknown how many of these employers and colleges will maintain coverage through the accommodation as before and how many will now opt for the exemption leaving their students, employees and dependents without no-cost coverage for the full range of contraceptive methods. As a result of the new regulation, choices about coverage and cost-sharing will be made by employers and private colleges and universities that issue student plans. For many women, their employers will determine whether they have no-cost coverage to the full range of FDA approved methods. Their choice of contraceptive methods may again be limited by cost, placing some of the most effective yet costly methods out of financial reach.
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Sobel L., Salganicoff A., Rosenzweig C. (6 October 2017). "New Regulations Broadening Employer Exemptions to Contraceptive Coverage: Impact on Women" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/new-regulations-broadening-employer-exemptions-to-contraceptive-coverage-impact-on-women/
Long-Term Disability Insurance Gets Little Attention But Can Pay Off Big Time
Is disability coverage worth it? At Saxon, we love to keep you updated on the latest news in the retirement world, and today, we want to dive into disability coverage. Check out this engaging and helpful article we pulled from KHN.
“It won’t happen to me.” Maybe that sentiment explains consumers’ attitude toward long-term disability insurance, which pays a portion of your income if you are unable to work.
Sixty-five percent of respondents surveyed this year by LIMRA, an association of financial services and insurance companies, said that most people need disability insurance. But the figure shrank to 48 percent when people were asked if they believe they personally need it. The proportion shriveled to 20 percent when people were asked if they actually have disability insurance.
As the annual benefits enrollment season gets underway at many companies, disability coverage may be one option worth your attention.
Some employers may be asking you to pay a bigger share or even the full cost. That can have a hidden advantage later, if you use the policy. Or you may find that your employer has automatically enrolled you — or plans to — unless you opt out. A growing number of employers are going that route to boost coverage that they feel is in their employees’ best interests, not to mention their own, since insurers usually require a minimum level of employee participation in order to offer a plan.
Benefits consultants agree that although long-term disability coverage lacks the novelty appeal of some other benefits that companies are offering these days — hello, pet insurance — it can prove much more valuable in the long run.
“This is a really critical safety-net benefit,” said Rich Fuerstenberg, a senior partner at human resources consultant Mercer.
If you become disabled because of accident, injury or illness, long-term disability insurance typically pays 50 to 60 percent of your income, while you’re unable to work. The length of time the policy pays varies; some policies pay until you reach age 65.
Long-term disability generally has a waiting period of three or six months before benefits kick in. That period would be covered by short-term disability insurance, if you have it.
Many long-term disability claims are for chronic problems such as cancer and musculoskeletal conditions. According to the Council for Disability Awareness, the average duration of a claim is nearly three years — 34.6 months.
Not everyone has savings to support them through that time. When the Federal Reserve Board surveyed adults about household economics in 2015, 53 percent said they don’t have a rainy day fund that could cover them even for three months. More troubling, nearly half of respondents — 46 percent — said that faced with a hypothetical $400 emergency expense, they didn’t have the cash to cover it.
According to the Social Security Administration, 1 in 4 people who are 20 years old now will be disabled before they reach age 67.
Overall, 41 percent of employers offer long-term disability insurance, according to LIMRA, though the proportion of larger employers who offer it is generally much higher. Compared with health insurance, premiums cost a pittance — $256 annually in 2016 on average for group plans, LIMRA says. Many employers pick up the whole tab or charge workers a small amount.
However, as employers continue to shift benefit costs onto employee shoulders, long-term disability is no exception. Increasingly, they’re offering the coverage as a “voluntary” benefit, meaning employees pay the entire premium.
The upside is that if employees pay for the coverage themselves with after-tax dollars and they ever become disabled and need to use the coverage, the benefits will be tax-free.
“If an employee can choose to pay for coverage on a post-tax basis, or is paying on a voluntary basis, it’s better for them,” said Jackie Reinberg, national practice leader for absence, disability management and life at benefits consultant Willis Towers Watson.
Some employers may pay for a core basic benefit that replaces 40 or 50 percent of income and offer workers the opportunity to “buy up” to more generous income replacement of 60 or 70 percent.
Although voluntary coverage has a tax advantage, disability consultants are concerned that leaving it up to employees, especially if they’re choosing among several other voluntary coverage options like cancer insurance, critical illness coverage and yes, pet insurance, increases the odds they’ll skip buying long-term disability coverage.
“These coverages all feel the same, and if you’re going to choose one at all you tend to go with the one that’s cheapest and the one that you think you might use,” said Carol Harnett, president of the Council for Disability Awareness, a membership group of disability insurers that does education and outreach about disability issues.
Auto-enrollment can make a big difference. Employers that auto-enroll employees in voluntary long-term disability plans may get 75 percent of employees to participate, compared with 30 percent for employers that leave it completely up to workers, said Mike Simonds, CEO of disability insurer Unum US.
If you were offered long-term disability coverage when you were hired and didn’t sign up, it may be tougher to do so during the open enrollment period, said Fuerstenberg. A growing number of health plans require employees to show “evidence of insurability,” meaning they must answer a series of health-related questions before they’re approved. Some long-term disability policies may also have preexisting condition provisions that won’t pay benefits for a condition for up to a year, for example.
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Andrews M. (10 October 2017). "Long-Term Disability Insurance Gets Little Attention But Can Pay Off Big Time" [web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://khn.org/news/long-term-disability-insurance-gets-little-attention-but-can-pay-off-big-time/
The Effects of Ending the Affordable Care Act’s Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments
Controversy has emerged recently over federal payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) related to cost-sharing reductions for low-income enrollees in the ACA’s marketplaces.
The ACA requires insurers to offer plans with reduced patient cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles and copays) to marketplace enrollees with incomes 100-250% of the poverty level. The reduced cost-sharing is only available in silver-level plans, and the premiums are the same as standard silver plans.
To compensate for the added cost to insurers of the reduced cost-sharing, the federal governments makes payments directly to insurance companies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of these payments at $7 billion in fiscal year 2017, rising to $10 billion in 2018 and $16 billion by 2027.
The U.S. House of Representatives sued the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Obama Administration, challenging the legality of making the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments without an explicit appropriation. A district court judge has ruled in favor of the House, but the ruling was appealed by the Secretary and the payments were permitted to continue pending the appeal. The case is currently in abeyance, with status reports required every three months, starting May 22, 2017.
If the CSR payments end – either through a court order or through a unilateral decision by the Trump Administration, assuming the payments are not explicitly authorized in an appropriation by Congress – insurers would face significant revenue shortfalls this year and next.
Many insurers might react to the end of subsidy payments by exiting the ACA marketplaces. If insurers choose to remain in the marketplaces, they would need to raise premiums to offset the loss of the payments.
We have previously estimated that insurers would need to raise silver premiums by about 19% on average to compensate for the loss of CSR payments. Our assumption is that insurers would only increase silver premiums (if allowed to do so by regulators), since those are the only plans where cost-sharing reductions are available. The premium increases would be higher in states that have not expanded Medicaid (and lower in states that have), since there are a large number of marketplace enrollees in those states with incomes 100-138% of poverty who qualify for the largest cost-sharing reductions.
There would be a significant amount of uncertainty for insurers in setting premiums to offset the cost of cost-sharing reductions. For example, they would need to anticipate what share of enrollees in silver plans would be receiving reduced cost-sharing and at what level. Under a worst case scenario – where only people eligible for sharing reductions enrolled in silver plans – the required premium increase would be higher than 19%, and many insurers might request bigger rate hikes.
Figure 1: How much silver premiums would have to rise to compensate for loss of cost-sharing reduction payments
While the federal government would save money by not making CSR payments, it would face increased costs for tax credits that subsidize premiums for marketplace enrollees with incomes 100-400% of the poverty level.
The ACA’s premium tax credits are based on the premium for a benchmark plan in each area: the second-lowest-cost silver plan in the marketplace. The tax credit is calculated as the difference between the premium for that benchmark plan and a premium cap calculated as a percent of the enrollee’s household income (ranging from 2.04% at 100% of the poverty level to 9.69% at 400% of the poverty in 2017).
Any systematic increase in premiums for silver marketplace plans (including the benchmark plan) would increase the size of premium tax credits. The increased tax credits would completely cover the increased premium for subsidized enrollees covered through the benchmark plan and cushion the effect for enrollees signed up for more expensive silver plans. Enrollees who apply their tax credits to other tiers of plans (i.e., bronze, gold, and platinum) would also receive increased premium tax credits even though they do not qualify for reduced cost-sharing and the underlying premiums in their plans might not increase at all.
We estimate that the increased cost to the federal government of higher premium tax credits would actually be 23% more than the savings from eliminating cost-sharing reduction payments. For fiscal year 2018, that would result in a net increase in federal costs of $2.3 billion. Extrapolating to the 10-year budget window (2018-2027) using CBO’s projection of CSR payments, the federal government would end up spending $31 billion more if the payments end.
This assumes that insurers would be willing to stay in the market if CSR payments are eliminated.
Figure 2: How eliminating ACA cost-sharing reduction payments increases federal costs (2018)
Methods
We previously estimated that the increase in silver premiums necessary to offset the elimination of CSR payments would be 19%.
To estimate the average increase in premium tax credits per enrollee, we applied that premium increase to the average premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in 2017. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that the average monthly premium for the lowest-cost silver plan in 2017 is $433. Our analysis of premium data shows that the second-lowest-cost silver plan has a premium 4% higher than average than the lowest-cost silver plan.
We applied our estimate of the average premium tax credit increase to the estimated total number of people receiving tax credits in 2017. This is based on the 10.1 million people who selected a plan during open enrollment and qualified for a tax credit, reduced by about 17% to reflect the difference between reported plan selections in 2016 and effectuated enrollment in June of 2016.
We believe the resulting 23% increase in federal costs is an underestimate. To the extent some people not receiving cost-sharing reductions migrate out of silver plans, the required premium increase to offset the loss of CSR payments would be higher. Selective exits by insurers (e.g., among those offering lower cost plans) could also drive benchmark premiums higher. In addition, higher silver premiums would somewhat increase the number of people receiving tax credits because currently some younger/higher-income people with incomes under 400% of the poverty level receive a tax credit of zero because their premium cap is lower than the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan. We have not accounted for any of these factors.
Our analysis produces results similar to recent estimates for California by Covered California and a January 2016 analysis from the Urban Institute.
Medicare Advantage: How Robust Are Plans’ Physician Networks?
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Jacobson G. (5 October 2017). "Medicare Advantage: How Robust Are Plans’ Physician Networks?" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/medicare/report/medicare-advantage-how-robust-are-plans-physician-networks/
One of the biggest trade-offs between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare is that Medicare Advantage plans have a more limited network of doctors and other providers. The size and breadth of provider networks can be an important factor for beneficiaries when choosing between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, and among Medicare Advantage plans. As of 2017, 19 million of the 58 million people on Medicare (33%) are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, yet little is known about their provider networks.
This report is the first known study to examine the size and composition of Medicare Advantage plans’ physician networks. This analysis draws upon data from 391 plans, offered by 55 insurers in 20 counties, and accounted for 14% of all Medicare Advantage enrollees nationwide in 2015. Key findings include:
Figure ES-1: One in three Medicare Advantage enrollees were in plans with narrow physician networks
- More than three in ten (35%) Medicare Advantage enrollees were in narrow-network plans while about two in ten (22%) were in broad-network plans. To some degree, the relative narrowness of plan networks masks the total number of physicians that enrollees could access, particularly in larger counties.
- Medicare Advantage networks included less than half (46%) of all physicians in a county, on average.
- Network size varied greatly among Medicare Advantage plans offered in a given county. For example, while enrollees in Erie County, NY had access to 60% of physicians in their county, on average, 16% of the plans in Erie had less than 10% of the physicians in the county while 36% of the plans had more than 80% of the physicians in the county.
- Access to psychiatrists was typically more restricted than for any other specialty. Medicare Advantage plans had 23% of the psychiatrists in a county, on average; 36% of plans included less than 10% of psychiatrists in their county. Some plans provided relatively little choice for other specialties as well; 20% of plans included less than 5 cardiothoracic surgeons, 18% of plans included less than 5 neurosurgeons, 16% of plans included less than 5 plastic surgeons, and 16% of plans included less than 5 radiation oncologists.
- Broad-network plans tended to have higher average premiums than narrow-network plans, and this was true for both HMOs ($54 versus $4 per month) and PPOs ($100 versus $28 per month).
Insurers may create narrow networks for a variety of reasons, such as to have greater control over the costs and quality of care provided to enrollees in the plan. The size and composition of Medicare Advantage provider networks is likely to be particularly important to enrollees when they have an unforeseen medical event or serious illness. However, accessing the information may not be easy for users, and comparing networks could be especially challenging. Beneficiaries could unwittingly face significant costs if they accidentally go out-of-network. Differences across plans, including provider networks, pose challenges for Medicare beneficiaries in choosing among plans and in seeking care, and raise questions for policymakers about the potential for wide variations in the healthcare experience of Medicare Advantage enrollees across the country.
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Jacobson G. (5 October 2017). "Medicare Advantage: How Robust Are Plans’ Physician Networks?" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/medicare/report/medicare-advantage-how-robust-are-plans-physician-networks/
An Early Look at 2018 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation on ACA Exchanges
Each year insurers submit filings to state regulators detailing their plans to participate on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces (also called exchanges). These filings include information on the premiums insurers plan to charge in the coming year and which areas they plan to serve. Each state or the federal government reviews premiums to ensure they are accurate and justifiable before the rate goes into effect, though regulators have varying types of authority and states make varying amounts of information public.
In this analysis, we look at preliminary premiums and insurer participation in the 20 states and the District of Columbia where publicly available rate filings include enough detail to be able to show the premium for a specific enrollee. As in previous years, we focus on the second-lowest cost silver plan in the major city in each state. This plan serves as the benchmark for premium tax credits. Enrollees must also enroll in a silver plan to obtain reduced cost sharing tied to their incomes. About 71% of marketplace enrollees are in silver plans this year.
States are still reviewing premiums and participation, so the data in this report are preliminary and could very well change. Rates and participation are not locked in until late summer or early fall (insurers must sign an annual contract by September 27 in states using Healthcare.gov).
Insurers in this market face new uncertainty in the current political environment and in some cases have factored this into their premium increases for the coming year. Specifically, insurers have been unsure whether the individual mandate (which brings down premiums by compelling healthy people to buy coverage) will be repealed by Congress or to what degree it will be enforced by the Trump Administration. Additionally, insurers in this market do not know whether the Trump Administration will continue to make payments to compensate insurers for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), which are the subject of a lawsuit, or whether Congress will appropriate these funds. (More on these subsidies can be found here).
The vast majority of insurers included in this analysis cite uncertainty surrounding the individual mandate and/or cost sharing subsidies as a factor in their 2018 rates filings. Some insurers explicitly factor this uncertainty into their initial premium requests, while other companies say if they do not receive more clarity or if cost-sharing payments stop, they plan to either refile with higher premiums or withdraw from the market. We include a table in this analysis highlighting examples of companies that have factored this uncertainty into their initial premium increases and specified the amount by which the uncertainty is increasing rates.
Changes in the Second-Lowest Cost Silver Premium
The second-lowest silver plan is one of the most popular plan choices on the marketplace and is also the benchmark that is used to determine the amount of financial assistance individuals and families receive. The table below shows these premiums for a major city in each state with available data. (Our analyses from 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014 examined changes in premiums and participation in these states and major cities since the exchange markets opened nearly four years ago.)
Across these 21 major cities, based on preliminary 2018 rate filings, the second-lowest silver premium for a 40-year-old non-smoker will range from $244 in Detroit, MI to $631 in Wilmington, DE, before accounting for the tax credit that most enrollees in this market receive.
Of these major cities, the steepest proposed increases in the unsubsidized second-lowest silver plan are in Wilmington, DE (up 49% from $423 to $631 per month for a 40-year-old non-smoker), Albuquerque, NM (up 34% from $258 to $346), and Richmond, VA (up 33% from $296 to $394). Meanwhile, unsubsidized premiums for the second-lowest silver premiums will decrease in Providence, RI (down -5% from $261 to $248 for a 40-year-old non-smoker) and remain essentially unchanged in Burlington, VT ($492 to $491).
As discussed in more detail below, this year’s preliminary rate requests are subject to much more uncertainty than in past years. An additional factor driving rates this year is the return of the ACA’s health insurance tax, which adds an estimated 2 to 3 percentage points to premiums.
Most enrollees in the marketplaces (84%) receive a tax credit to lower their premium and these enrollees will be protected from premium increases, though they may need to switch plans in order to take full advantage of the tax credit. The premium tax credit caps how much a person or family must spend on the benchmark plan in their area at a certain percentage of their income. For this reason, in 2017, a single adult making $30,000 per year would pay about $207 per month for the second-lowest-silver plan, regardless of the sticker price (unless their unsubsidized premium was less than $207 per month). If this person enrolls in the second lowest-cost silver plan is in 2018 as well, he or she will pay slightly less (the after-tax credit payment for a similar person in 2018 will be $201 per month, or a decrease of 2.9%). Enrollees can use their tax credits in any marketplace plan. So, because tax credits rise with the increase in benchmark premiums, enrollees are cushioned from the effect of premium hikes.
| Table 1: Monthly Silver Premiums and Financial Assistance for a 40 Year Old Non-Smoker Making $30,000 / Year | ||||||||||
| State | Major City | 2nd Lowest Cost Silver Before Tax Credit |
2nd Lowest Cost Silver After Tax Credit |
Amount of Premium Tax Credit | ||||||
| 2017 | 2018 | % Change from 2017 |
2017 | 2018 | % Change from 2017 |
2017 | 2018 | % Change from 2017 |
||
| California* | Los Angeles | $258 | $289 | 12% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $51 | $88 | 71% |
| Colorado | Denver | $313 | $352 | 12% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $106 | $150 | 42% |
| Connecticut | Hartford | $369 | $417 | 13% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $162 | $216 | 33% |
| DC | Washington | $298 | $324 | 9% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $91 | $122 | 35% |
| Delaware | Wilmington | $423 | $631 | 49% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $216 | $430 | 99% |
| Georgia | Atlanta | $286 | $308 | 7% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $79 | $106 | 34% |
| Idaho | Boise | $348 | $442 | 27% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $141 | $241 | 70% |
| Indiana | Indianapolis | $286 | $337 | 18% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $79 | $135 | 72% |
| Maine | Portland | $341 | $397 | 17% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $134 | $196 | 46% |
| Maryland | Baltimore | $313 | $392 | 25% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $106 | $191 | 81% |
| Michigan* | Detroit | $237 | $244 | 3% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $29 | $42 | 44% |
| Minnesota** | Minneapolis | $366 | $383 | 5% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $159 | $181 | 14% |
| New Mexico | Albuquerque | $258 | $346 | 34% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $51 | $144 | 183% |
| New York*** | New York City | $456 | $504 | 10% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $249 | $303 | 21% |
| Oregon | Portland | $312 | $350 | 12% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $105 | $149 | 42% |
| Pennsylvania | Philadelphia | $418 | $515 | 23% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $211 | $313 | 49% |
| Rhode Island | Providence | $261 | $248 | -5% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $54 | $47 | -13% |
| Tennessee | Nashville | $419 | $507 | 21% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $212 | $306 | 44% |
| Vermont | Burlington | $492 | $491 | 0% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $285 | $289 | 2% |
| Virginia | Richmond | $296 | $394 | 33% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $89 | $193 | 117% |
| Washington | Seattle | $238 | $306 | 29% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $31 | $105 | 239% |
| NOTES: *The 2018 premiums for MI and CA reflect the assumption that CSR payments will continue. **The 2018 premium for MN assumes no reinsurance. ***Empire has filed to offer on the individual market in New York in 2018 but has not made its rates public. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of premium data from Healthcare.gov and insurer rate filings to state regulators. |
||||||||||
Looking back to 2014, when changes to the individual insurance market under the ACA first took effect, reveals a wide range of premium changes. In many of these cities, average annual premium growth over the 2014-2018 period has been modest, and in two cites (Indianapolis and Providence), benchmark premiums have actually decreased. In other cities, premiums have risen rapidly over the period, though in some cases this rapid growth was because premiums were initially quite low (e.g., in Nashville and Minneapolis).
| Table 2: Monthly Benchmark Silver Premiums for a 40 Year Old Non-Smoker, 2014-2018 |
||||||||
| State | Major City | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | Average Annual % Change from 2014 to 2018 | Average Annual % Change After Tax Credit, $30K Income |
| California | Los Angeles | $255 | $257 | $245 | $258 | $289 | 3% | -1% |
| Colorado | Denver | $250 | $211 | $278 | $313 | $352 | 9% | -1% |
| Connecticut | Hartford | $328 | $312 | $318 | $369 | $417 | 6% | -1% |
| DC | Washington | $242 | $242 | $244 | $298 | $324 | 8% | -1% |
| Delaware | Wilmington | $289 | $301 | $356 | $423 | $631 | 22% | -1% |
| Georgia | Atlanta | $250 | $255 | $254 | $286 | $308 | 5% | -1% |
| Idaho | Boise | $231 | $210 | $273 | $348 | $442 | 18% | -1% |
| Indiana | Indianapolis | $341 | $329 | $298 | $286 | $337 | 0% | -1% |
| Maine | Portland | $295 | $282 | $288 | $341 | $397 | 8% | -1% |
| Maryland | Baltimore | $228 | $235 | $249 | $313 | $392 | 15% | -1% |
| Michigan* | Detroit | $224 | $230 | $226 | $237 | $244 | 2% | -1% |
| Minnesota** | Minneapolis | $162 | $183 | $235 | $366 | $383 | 24% | 6% |
| New Mexico | Albuquerque | $194 | $171 | $186 | $258 | $346 | 16% | 1% |
| New York*** | New York City | $365 | $372 | $369 | $456 | $504 | 8% | -1% |
| Oregon | Portland | $213 | $213 | $261 | $312 | $350 | 13% | -1% |
| Pennsylvania | Philadelphia | $300 | $268 | $276 | $418 | $515 | 14% | -1% |
| Rhode Island | Providence | $293 | $260 | $263 | $261 | $248 | -4% | -1% |
| Tennessee | Nashville | $188 | $203 | $281 | $419 | $507 | 28% | 2% |
| Vermont | Burlington | $413 | $436 | $468 | $492 | $491 | 4% | -1% |
| Virginia | Richmond | $253 | $260 | $276 | $296 | $394 | 12% | -1% |
| Washington | Seattle | $281 | $254 | $227 | $238 | $306 | 2% | -1% |
| NOTES: *The 2018 premiums for MI and CA reflect the assumption that CSR payments will continue. **The 2018 premium for MN assumes no reinsurance. ***Empire has filed to offer on the individual market in New York in 2018 but has not made its rates public. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of premium data from Healthcare.gov and insurer rate filings to state regulators. |
||||||||
Changes in Insurer Participation
Across these 20 states and DC, an average of 4.6 insurers have indicated they intend to participate in 2018, compared to an average of 5.1 insurers per state in 2017, 6.2 in 2016, 6.7 in 2015, and 5.7 in 2014. In states using Healthcare.gov, insurers have until September 27 to sign final contracts to participate in 2018. Insurers often do not serve an entire state, so the number of choices available to consumers in a particular area will typically be less than these figures.
| Table 3: Total Number of Insurers by State, 2014 – 2018 | |||||
| State | Total Number of Issuers in the Marketplace | ||||
| 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 (Preliminary) | |
| California | 11 | 10 | 12 | 11 | 11 |
| Colorado | 10 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
| Connecticut | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| DC | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Delaware | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 (Aetna exiting) |
| Georgia | 5 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 4 (Humana exiting) |
| Idaho | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 (Cambia exiting) |
| Indiana | 4 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 2 (Anthem and MDwise exiting) |
| Maine | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Maryland | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 (Cigna exiting, Evergreen1 filed to reenter) |
| Michigan | 9 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 8 (Humana exiting) |
| Minnesota | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| New Mexico | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| New York | 16 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 14 |
| Oregon | 11 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 5 (Atrio exiting) |
| Pennsylvania | 7 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Tennessee | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 (Humana exiting, Oscar entering) |
| Vermont | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Virginia | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 6 (UnitedHealthcare and Aetna exiting) |
| Washington | 7 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 (Community Health Plan of WA exiting) |
| Average (20 states + DC) | 5.7 | 6.7 | 6.2 | 5.1 | 4.6 |
| NOTES: Insurers are grouped by parent company or group affiliation, which we obtained from HHS Medical Loss Ratio public use files and supplemented with additional research. 1The number of preliminary 2018 insurers in Maryland includes Evergreen, which submitted a filing but has been placed in receivership. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of premium data from Healthcare.gov and insurer rate filings to state regulators. |
|||||
Uncertainty Surrounding ACA Provisions
Insurers in the individual market must submit filings with their premiums and service areas to states and/or the federal government for review well in advance of these rates going into effect. States vary in their deadlines and processes, but generally, insurers were required to submit their initial rate requests in May or June of 2017 for products that go into effect in January 2018. Once insurers set their premiums for 2018 and sign final contacts at the end of September, those premiums are locked in for the entire calendar year and insurers do not have an opportunity to revise their rates or service areas until the following year.
Meanwhile, over the course of this summer, the debate in Congress over repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has carried on as insurers set their rates for next year. Both the House and Senate bills included provisions that would have made significant changes to the law effective in 2018 or even retroactively, including repeal of the individual mandate penalty. Additionally, the Trump administration has sent mixed signals over whether it would continue to enforce the individual mandate or make payments to insurers to reimburse them for the cost of providing legally required cost-sharing assistance to low-income enrollees.
Because this policy uncertainty is far outside the norm, insurers are making varying assumptions about how this uncertainty will play out and affect premiums. Some states have attempted to standardize the process by requesting rate submissions under multiple scenarios, while other states appear to have left the decision up to each individual company. There is no standard place in the filings where insurers across all states can explain this type of assumption, and some states do not post complete filings to allow the public to examine which assumptions insurers are making.
In the 20 states and DC with detailed rate filings included in the previous sections of this analysis, the vast majority of insurers cite policy uncertainty in their rate filings. Some insurers make an explicit assumption about the individual mandate not being enforced or cost-sharing subsidies not being paid and specify how much each assumption contributes to the overall rate increase. Other insurers state that if they do not get clarity by the time final rates must be submitted – which has now been delayed to September 5 for the federal marketplace – they may either increase their premiums further or withdraw from the market.
Table 4 highlights examples of insurers that have explicitly factored into their premiums an assumption that either the individual mandate will not be enforced or cost-sharing subsidy payments will not be made and have specified the degree to which that assumption is influencing their initial rate request. As mentioned above, the vast majority of companies in states with detailed rate filings have included some language around the uncertainty, so it is likely that more companies will revise their premiums to reflect uncertainty in the absence of clear answers from Congress or the Administration.
Insurers assuming the individual mandate will not be enforced have factored in to their rate increases an additional 1.2% to 20%. Those assuming cost-sharing subsidy payments will not continue and factoring this into their initial rate requests have applied an additional rate increase ranging from 2% to 23%. Because cost-sharing reductions are only available in silver plans, insurers may seek to raise premiums just in those plans if the payments end. We estimate that silver premiums would have to increase by 19% on average to compensate for the loss of CSR payments, with the amount varying substantially by state.
Several insurers assumed in their initial rate filing that payment of the cost-sharing subsidies would continue, but indicated the degree to which rates would increase if they are discontinued. These insurers are not included in the Table 4. If CSR payments end or there is continued uncertainty, these insurers say they would raise their rates an additional 3% to 10% beyond their initial request – or ranging from 9% to 38% in cases when the rate increases would only apply to silver plans. Some states have instructed insurers to submit two sets of rates to account for the possibility of discontinued cost-sharing subsidies. In California, for example, a surcharge would be added to silver plans on the exchange, increasing proposed rates an additional 12.4% on average across all 11 carriers, ranging from 8% to 27%.
| Table 4: Examples of Preliminary Insurer Assumptions Regarding Individual Mandate Enforcement and Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) Payments |
|||||
| State | Insurer | Average Rate Increase Requested | Individual Mandate Assumption | CSR Payments Assumption | Requested Rate Increase Due to Mandate or CSR Uncertainty |
| CT | ConnectiCare | 17.5% | Weakly enforced1 | Not specified | Mandate: 2.4% |
| DE | Highmark BCBSD | 33.6% | Not enforced | Not paid | Mandate and CSR: 12.8% combined impact |
| GA | Alliant Health Plans | 34.5% | Not enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 5.0% CSR: Unspecified |
| ID | Mountain Health CO-OP | 25.0% | Not specified | Not paid | CSR: 17.0% |
| ID | PacificSource Health Plans | 45.6% | Not specified | Not paid | CSR: 23.2% |
| ID | SelectHealth | 45.0% | Not specified | Not paid | CSR: 20.0% |
| MD | CareFirst BlueChoice | 45.6% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 20.0% |
| ME | Harvard PilgrimHealth Care | 39.7% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 15.9% |
| MI | BCBS of MI | 26.9% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid (two rate submissions) | Mandate: 5.0% |
| MI | Blue Care Network of MI | 13.8% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid (two rate submissions) | Mandate: 5.0% |
| MI | Molina Healthcare of MI | 19.3% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid (two rate submissions) | Mandate: 9.5% |
| NM | CHRISTUS Health Plan | 49.2% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 9.0%, combined impact of individual mandate non-enforcement and reduced advertising and outreach |
| NM | Molina Healthcare of NM | 21.2% | Weakly enforced | Paid | Mandate: 11.0% |
| NM | New Mexico Health Connections | 32.8% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 20.0% |
| OR* | BridgeSpan | 17.2% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 11.0% |
| OR* | Moda Health | 13.1% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 1.2% |
| OR* | Providence Health Plan | 20.7% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 9.7%, largely due to individual mandate non-enforcement |
| TN | BCBS of TN | 21.4% | Not enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 7.0% CSR: 14.0% |
| TN | Cigna | 42.1% | Weakly enforced | Not paid | CSR: 14.1% |
| TN | Oscar Insurance | NA (New to state) | Not enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 0%, despite non-enforcement CSR: 17.0%, applied only to silver plans |
| VA | CareFirst BlueChoice | 21.5% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 20.0% |
| VA | CareFirst GHMSI | 54.3% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 20.0% |
| WA | LifeWise Health Plan of Washington | 21.6% | Weakly enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 5.2% CSR: 2.3% |
| WA | Premera Blue Cross | 27.7% | Weakly enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 4.0% CSR: 3.1% |
| WA | Molina Healthcare of WA | 38.5% | Weakly enforced | Paid | Mandate: 5.4% |
| NOTES: The CSR assumption “Potentially not paid” refers to insurers that filed initial rates assuming CSR payments are made and indicated that uncertainty over CSR funding would change their initial rate requests. In Michigan, insurers were instructed to submit a second set of filings showing rate increases without CSR payments; the rates shown above assume continued CSR payments. *The Oregon Division of Financial Regulation reviewed insurer filings and advised adjustment of the impact of individual mandate uncertainty to between 2.4% and 5.1%. Although rates have since been finalized, the increases shown here are based on initial insurer requests. 1Connecticare assumes a public perception that the mandate will not be enforced. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of premium data from Healthcare.gov and insurer rate filings to state regulators. |
|||||
Discussion
A number of insurers have requested double-digit premium increases for 2018. Based on initial filings, the change in benchmark silver premiums will likely range from -5% to 49% across these 21 major cities. These rates are still being reviewed by regulators and may change.
In the past, requested premiums have been similar, if not equal to, the rates insurers ultimately charge. This year, because of the uncertainty insurers face over whether the individual mandate will be enforced or cost-sharing subsidy payments will be made, some companies have included an additional rate increase in their initial rate requests, while other companies have said they may revise their premiums late in the process. It is therefore quite possible that the requested rates in this analysis will change between now and open enrollment.
Insurers attempting to price their plans and determine which states and counties they will service next year face a great deal of uncertainty. They must soon sign contracts locking in their premiums for the entire year of 2018, yet Congress or the Administration could make significant changes in the coming months to the law – or its implementation – that could lead to significant losses if companies have not appropriately priced for these changes. Insurers vary in the assumptions they make regarding the individual mandate and cost-sharing subsidies and the degree to which they are factoring this uncertainty into their rate requests.
Because most enrollees on the exchange receive subsidies, they will generally be protected from premium increases. Ultimately, most of the burden of higher premiums on exchanges falls on taxpayers. Middle and upper-middle income people purchasing their own coverage off-exchange, however, are not protected by subsidies and will pay the full premium increase, switch to a lower level plan, or drop their coverage. Although the individual market on average has been stabilizing, the concern remains that another year of steep premium increases could cause healthy people (particularly those buying off-exchange) to drop their coverage, potentially leading to further rate hikes or insurer exits.
Methods
Data were collected from health insurer rate filing submitted to state regulators. These submissions are publicly available for the states we analyzed. Most rate information is available in the form of a SERFF filing (System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing) that includes a base rate and other factors that build up to an individual rate. In states where filings were unavailable, we gathered data from tables released by state insurance departments. Premium data are current as of August 7, 2017; however, filings in most states are still preliminary and will likely change before open enrollment. All premiums in this analysis are at the rating area level, and some plans may not be available in all cities or counties within the rating area. Rating areas are typically groups of neighboring counties, so a major city in the area was chosen for identification purposes.
What's the Dish? A Family Recipe for Salsa Lovers
In this month's Dish, we bring you the delicious "Dine In" and "Dine Out" choices from our very own, Abby Graham!
Abby Graham is a Wellness Director Saxon Financial Services. She has been in the insurance, health and wellness industry for over 12 years. Prior to joining Saxon Financial, she spent the last 7 years working for Humana/HumanaVitality. She is passionate about making sure members understand their medical and wellness benefits as well as how to maximize their potential.
Abby holds a degree in Human Resource Development from the University of Tennessee. She has also received her Group Benefits Disability Specialist (GBDS) certification.
She is an active member and board member of the Cincinnati Modern Quilt Guild. Abby also enjoys sewing, quilting, and spending time with her husband, Jon and her son, Carter.
Stay In:
Abby's favorite family recipe is Corn Avocado Salsa. She and her husband make it together. It’s best in the summer when the tomatoes are ripe and the corn is sweet!
1 ripe tomato
1 avocado
1 ear of corn
½ cup chopped cilantro
1 sweet onion
1 jalapeno
2-3 garlic cloves
1 ripe lime
Salt to taste
Grill the tomato until the skin is cracked and peeling off. Cut the avocado and grill it face down for about 5 minutes. Grill the corn until it is cooked all the way. In the meantime, finely chop the onion, jalapeno, cilantro and garlic cloves. Squeeze ½ of the lime over onion, jalapeno, cilantro and garlic combination.
Once tomato, avocado, and corn are finished grilling, cut corn off of the cob, and peel skin off of tomato. Dice tomato and avocado and add to chopped mix. Add salt to taste and serve warm with tortilla chips!
Dine Out:
Her favorite place to Dine Out is Dilly Café. Want driving directions? Get them here.
Our favorite restaurant is the Dilly Café in Mariemont. The outside seating is perfect on a nice night and/or when we have our little one with us. They generally have a band playing, the food is excellent, and the beer and wine list are great! Their crab cakes, wings and burgers are my favorites!
YUM! We hope you enjoy Abby's recipe and dining suggestions. We know we will!
CenterStage...Open Season for Open Enrollment
In this month’s CenterStage, we interviewed Rich Arnold for some in-depth information on Medicare plans and health coverage. Read the full article below.
Open Season for Open Enrollment: What does it mean for you?
There are 10,000 people turning 65 every single day. Medicare has a lot of options, causing the process to be extremely confusing. Rich – a Senior Solutions Advisor – works hard to provide you with the various options available to seniors in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana and reduce them to an ideal, simple, and easy-to-follow plan.
“For me, this is all about helping people.”
– Rich Arnold, Senior Solutions Advisor
What does this call for?
To provide clients with top-notch Medicare guidance, Rich must analyze their current doctors and drugs for the best plan option and properly educate them to choose the best program for their situation and health. It’s a simple, free process of evaluation, education, and enrollment.
For this month’s CenterStage article, we asked Rich to break down Medicare for the senior population who are in desperate need of a break from the confusion.
Medicare Break Down
Part A. Hospitalization, Skilled Nursing, etc.
If you’ve worked for 40 quarters, you automatically obtain Part A coverage.
Part B. Medical Services: Doctors, Surgeries, Outpatient visits, etc.…
You must enroll and pay a monthly premium.
Part C. Medicare Advantage Plans:
Provides most of your hospital and medical expenses.
Part D.
Prescription drug plans available with Medicare.
Under Parts A & B there are two types of plans…
Supplement Plan or Medigap Plan
A Medicare Supplement Insurance (Medigap) policy can help pay some of the health care costs that Original Medicare doesn’t cover, like copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles, coverage anywhere in the US as well as travel outside of the country, pay a monthly amount, and usually coupled with a prescription drug plan.
Advantage Plan
A type of Medicare health plan that contracts with Medicare to provide you with all your Part A and Part B benefits generally through a HMO or PPO, pay a monthly amount from $0 and up, covers emergency services, and offers prescription drug plans.
How does this effect you?
Medicare starts at 65 years of age, but Rich advises anyone turning 63 or 64 years of age to reach out to an advisor, such as himself, for zero cost, to be put onto their calendar to follow up at the proper time to investigate the Medicare options. Some confusion exists about Medicare and Social Security which are separate entities. Social Security does not pay for the Supplement or Advantage plans.
Medicare Open Enrollment: Open Enrollment occurs between October 15th and December 7 – yes, right around the corner! However, don’t panic, Rich and his services can help you if you are turning 65 or if you haven’t reviewed your current plan in over a year – you should seek his guidance.
Your plan needs to be reviewed every year to best fit your needs. If you’re on the verge of 65, turning 65 in the next few months, or over 65, you should consult your Medicare advisor as soon as possible. For a no cost analysis of your needs contact Rich, Saxon Senior Solutions Advisor, rarnold@gosaxon.com, 513-808-4879.
4 Main Impacts of Yesterday's Executive Order
Yesterday, President Trump used his pen to set his sights on healthcare having completed the signing of an executive order after Congress failed to repeal ObamaCare.
Here’s a quick dig into some of what this order means and who might be impacted from yesterday's signing.
A Focus On Small Businesses
The executive order eases rules on small businesses banding together to buy health insurance, through what are known as association health plans, and lifts limits on short-term health insurance plans, according to an administration source. This includes directing the Department of Labor to "modernize" rules to allow small employers to create association health plans, the source said. Small businesses will be able to band together if they are within the same state, in the same "line of business," or are in the same trade association.
Skinny Plans
The executive order expands the availability of short-term insurance policies, which offer limited benefits meant as a bridge for people between jobs or young adults no longer eligible for their parents’ health plans. This extends the limited three-month rule under the Obama administration to now nearly a year.
Pretax Dollars
This executive order also targets widening employers’ ability to use pretax dollars in “health reimbursement arrangements”, such as HSAs and HRAs, to help workers pay for any medical expenses, not just for health policies that meet ACA rules. This is a complete reversal of the original provisions of the Obama policy.
Research and Get Creative
The executive order additionally seeks to lead a federal study on ways to limit consolidation within the insurance and hospital industries, looking for new and creative ways to increase competition and choice in health care to improve quality and lower cost.