3 things NAHU told the IRS about ACA premium tax credits

The National Association of Health Underwriters has tried to show Affordable Care Act program managers that it can take a practical, apolitical approach to thinking about ACA issues.

Some of the Washington-based agent group's members strongly supported passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and its sister, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Many loathe the ACA package.

But NAHU itself has tried to focus mainly on efforts to improve how the ACA, ACA regulations and ACA programs work for consumers, employer plan sponsors and agents. In Washington, for example, NAHU has helped the District of Columbia reach out to local agents. NAHU also offers an exchange agent certification course for HealthCare.gov agents.

Now NAHU is investing some of the credit it has earned for ACA fairness in an effort to shape draft eligibility screening regulations proposed this summer by the Internal Revenue Service, an arm of the U.S. Treasury Department.

Janet Stokes Trautwein, NAHU's executive vice president and chief executive officer, says she and colleagues at NAHU talked to many agents and brokers about the draft regulations.

For a look at just a little of what she wrote in her comment letter, read on:


1. Exchanges have to communicate better

The IRS included many ideas in the draft regulations about ways to keep consumers honest when they apply for Affordable Care Act exchange premium tax credit subsidies.

ACA drafters wanted people to be able to use the subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket coverage costs as the year went on, to reduce those costs to about what the employee's share of the payments for solid group health coverage might be.

To do that, the drafters and implementers at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS came up with a system that requires consumers to predict in advance what their incoming will be in the coming year.

Consumers who predict their income will be too low and get too much tax credit money are supposed to true up with the IRS when the file their taxes the following spring. The IRS has an easy time getting the money when consumers are supposed to get refunds. It can then deduct the payments from the refunds. When consumers are not getting refunds, or simply fail to file tax returns, the IRS has no easy way to get the cash back.

The exchanges and the IRS also face the problem that some people earn too little to qualify for tax credits but too much to qualify for Medicaid. Those people have an incentive to lie and say their income will be higher than it is likely to be.

Trautwein writes in her letter that the ACA exchange system could help by doing more to educate consumers when the consumers are applying for exchange coverage.

"The health insurance exchange marketplaces [should] be required to clearly notify consumers of the consequences of potential income-based eligibility fraud at the time of application, in order to help discourage it from ever happening," Trautwein writes.


2. Federal health and tax systems have to work smoothly together

Trautwein notes in her letter that the ACA exchange system has an exchange eligibility determination process, and that the IRS has another set of standards for determining, based on a consumer's access, or lack of access, to employer-sponsored health coverage, who is eligible for premium tax credit subsidies.

NAHU is worried about the possibility that a lack of coordination between the IRS and the HHS could lead to incorrect decisions about whether exchange applicants have access to the kind of affordable employer-sponsored coverage with a minimum value required by the ACA laws and regulations, Trautwein writes.

"We believe that it is fairly easy for consumers to mistakenly apply for and then receive advanced payments of a premium tax credit for which they are not eligible" based on wrong ideas about affordability, she says.

Consumers could easily end up owing thousands of dollars in credit repayments because of those kinds of errors, she says.

In the long run, employers should be reporting on the coverage they expect to offer in the coming year, rather than trying to figure out what kind of coverage they offered in the past year, Trautwein says.

In the meantime, the IRS and HHS have to work together to improve the employer verification process, she says.


3. Employees do not and cannot speak ACA

Trautwein says NAHU members also worry about exchange efforts to depend on information from workers to verify what kind of coverage the workers had.

"Based on our membership's extensive work with employee participants in employer-sponsored group benefit plans, we can say with confidence that the vast majority of employees do not readily understand the various ACA-related labeling nuances of their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage offerings," she says.

"Terms that are now commonplace to health policy professionals, like minimum essential coverage and excepted benefits, are meaningless to mainstream consumers," she says.

NAHU does not see how an exchange will know what kind of coverage a worker really had access to until after employer reporting is reconciled with information from the exchanges and from individual tax returns, which might not happen until more than a year after the consumer received the tax credit subsidies, Trautwein says.

"This weakness on the part of the exchanges could leave consumers potentially liable for thousands of dollars of tax credit repayments, all because of confusing terms and requirements and inadequate eligibility verification mechanisms," she says.

See the Original Article Here.


Bell, A. (2016, September 30). 3 things NAHA told the IRS about ACA premium tax credits [Web log post]. Retreived from https://www.lifehealthpro.com/2016/09/30/3-things-nahu-told-the-irs-about-aca-premium-tax-c?page_all=1

Thousands still lack PPACA coverage

Originally posted July 8, 2014 by Kathryn Mayer on www.benefitspro.com.

Just because consumers are paying for health care coverage though the exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act doesn’t mean they’re actually getting coverage.

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, thousands of enrollees still lack coverage despite picking a plan and paying for coverage due to problems in the law's enrollment systems. The problems are prevalent in California, Nevada and Massachusetts, states running their own exchanges. The enrollment glitches are causing thousands to delay care and pay more out-of-pocket expenses.

The newspaper’s report follows findings from the Health and Human Services inspector general last week that detailed widespread data errors still plaguing the law. That report found the administration was unable to resolve 2.6 million inconsistencies in the federal exchange out of a reported 2.9 million because the CMS system for determining eligibility was “not fully operational.”

And of the roughly 330,000 cases that could be straightened out, the administration only resolved about 10,000, which is less than 1 percent of the total.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that many enrollees who requested life event changes in coverage — such as marriage or a new child — haven’t gone into effect yet, even months are the request. For example, Minnesota has a 6,500 backlog for coverage change requests because of life events, the report found.

The Journal doesn’t pinpoint exact numbers, but it’s likely a fraction of the 8 million people who enrolled in coverage through the exchanges.

According to a report from the Commonwealth Fund, 20 million people have been covered because of the law — an additional 12 million people who gained coverage through other provisions of the law along with the 8 million who enrolled in coverage through the exchanges since the spring.

Private Exchanges May Offer Shelter from Cadillac Tax

Originally posted April 03, 2014 by Allen Greenberg on https://www.benefitspro.com

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – Avoiding, or at least putting off, the so-called Cadillac tax in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is on a lot of employers’ minds.

Speaking Wednesday at the 2014 Benefits Selling Expo, William Stuart, a lead consultant at Wellesley, Mass.-based Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, suggested that one of the best ways to do so is by moving employees to one of the burgeoning number of private insurance exchanges.

That alone won’t do the trick, he said, but shifting to an exchange can help “reset the premium base” and “bend the cost curve” – the two things necessary if employers hope to postpone the pain of the excise tax.

The tax – meant to raise money to offset the government’s subsidies to lower-income individuals and families buying insurance under the PPACA – goes into effect in 2018. It is a 40-percent penalty on premium dollars above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.

This tax is probably not going to go away,” Stuart said. “It might. But we can’t base our strategy on what may or may not happen.”

The premium levels at which the tax is calculated, he said, will include medical premiums, health flexible spending arrangement elections, health reimbursement arrangements and employer contribution to HSAs. “In other words,” he said, “the law has taken some tools (for reducing or putting off the tax) off the table.”

But options do exist, he said, and the sooner employers act, the better, meaning the later the tax will impact them.

Stuart said brokers should consider encouraging their clients to establish wellness programs. The return on investment is often difficult to gauge on wellness, he noted, but a healthier workforce tends to mean fewer health problems, which helps bend the cost curve.

A narrower provider network can also help, he said, especially one that might exclude teaching hospitals where costs tend to be higher.

Stuart acknowledged people prefer all kinds of choices in which doctors they see or which hospital they might use. But that fades once they realize they can save up to 25 percent of their costs.

Health savings accounts, meanwhile, are another option for employers looking to reduce costs, because they encourage employees to be more careful with their health care dollars.

In the end, however, private exchanges may yield the most dramatic results, Stuart said.

Among their advantages: an array of health plans offering in some cases as much as a 40-percent spread in premium costs.

Once in an exchange, the employee mindset shifts to saving money, rather than simply buying without shopping. People, Stuart said, tend to buy down in an exchange once they realize they might have been over-insured. This, too, helps reset the base.

Aon Hewitt, the large employee benefits consultancy, which last year launched its Aon Hewitt Corporate Health Exchange, recently said the average cost increase for three fully insured large companies in its exchange was 5.1 percent.

By comparison, average cost increases for large U.S. employers are projected to be between 6 and 7 percent in 2014, according to Aon Hewitt’s annual cost trend data report.

Despite Delayed Key Provision, Health Care Reform Triggers Benefits Action Among Employers

Originally posted March 03, 2014 on https://www.voluntary.com

Employers report impact on benefits funding, opening opportunity for voluntary benefits

NEWARK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--With Affordable Care Act deadlines imminent in 2014 and 2015, employers are reporting the increased impact of health care reform on various aspects of employee benefits. According to Health Care Reform: Full Steam Ahead, the first in a series of five research briefs based on The Prudential Insurance Company of America’s (Prudential’s) Eighth Annual Study of Employee Benefits: Today & Beyond, nearly half (49%) of employers report they are extremely or very likely to make a high-deductible health plan their only health insurance option.

“The Affordable Care Act could very well usher in a new era for and emphasis on voluntary benefits. More employers are utilizing them for recruiting and retaining talent and employees increasingly view them as a cost-effective way to protect their families’ financial futures.”

“Although employers anticipate scaling back benefit offerings due to cost considerations, there’s great opportunity for them to offer voluntary benefits in order to continue providing attractive benefits to their employees,” said Vishal Jain, vice president, Strategy, Planning and Business Insights, Prudential Group Insurance. “The Affordable Care Act could very well usher in a new era for and emphasis on voluntary benefits. More employers are utilizing them for recruiting and retaining talent and employees increasingly view them as a cost-effective way to protect their families’ financial futures.”

According to the report, 73% of employers say the law is having an impact on benefits service and support and 69% report there is an impact on benefits communications. “With a shifting benefits landscape, carriers are now focused on being a trusted resource for employers while offering a full spectrum of services such as enrollment communications, benefits education, record keeping, and administrative services,” Jain said.

In addition to highlighting the law’s potential impact on voluntary benefits, health insurance exchanges central to the legislation are top of mind for employees surveyed. Key findings include:

Employees are increasingly confident more Americans will be covered under the Affordable Care Act (43%, up 7 percentage points from 2012). An expanding number feel fewer employers will offer health insurance (44%, a 13 percentage point increase from 2012), and 38% of those employees believe their employer will drop coverage.

Most employees report having neither a favorable nor unfavorable opinion toward both public and private exchanges.

About one-third of employees report they have heard of but know little about public or private exchanges while one-in-five say they have never heard of either before the survey.

“As employers evaluate the implications of public and private exchanges, the importance of their partnerships with carriers will continue to grow. Employers will look for carriers that provide value, make benefits administration easier, help employees make better benefit decisions, and provide excellent customer service,” said Jain. “We’re poised to support our customers with innovative and cost-effective benefit solutions, coupled with a full array of services designed to improve employees’ financial wellness.”

Public Exchanges Competitive with Employer-Sponsored Plan

Originally posted January 30, 2014 by Michael Giardina on https://eba.benefitnews.com

Premiums for health plans on new state exchanges under the Affordable Care Act are comparable to – and in some cases lower than – those being offered by employers with similar levels of coverage, according to a study released Thursday by PricewaterhouseCooper’s Health Research Institute.

HRI analyzed the average premium costs for a working population nationally in the public exchanges, and calculated that the median 2014 premium for a plan with coverage similar to that of the average employer-sponsored plan was $5,844. By comparison, the average employer premium for a single worker was $6,119, a difference of 4%. The premiums do not include subsidies.

The ACA allows for consumers to shop on its 51 new state exchanges within four plan levels; these include bronze, which pays 60% of healthcare costs; silver, which covers 70%; gold, which covers 80%; and platinum, which covers 90% of the bill.

Currently, employer-sponsored health plans cover about 85% of healthcare costs, with the remaining costs being charged to employees, the PwC study states.

Across the board, at every level, average exchange premiums are lower than this year’s average premiums for employer-sponsored coverage, according to the data.

“Employers may be surprised that exchange premiums in 2014 are comparable to employer premiums and in some states significantly lower than employer-based premiums,” says the report. “Employers contemplating future limits to their health care spending could face less resistance if employees are given a wider range of options at different price points via an exchange.”

The report cautions, however, that future fluctuations in public exchange rates are possible because health plans are competing under a new set of underwriting rules which provide some protections against financial risk. “As a result of this uncertainty, the first-year exchange rates vary significantly. It may take several years for this new market to reach equilibrium,” it says.

HRI’s analysis is based  data of employer-sponsored premiums of 156 million people in 2013. The analysis compares the premiums paid by employers for single worker coverage to premiums paid for similar coverage in the state exchanges.

Another PPACA deadline delayed

Originally posted December 12, 2013 by Allison Bell on https://www.benefitspro.com

The Obama administration has issued new regs that public exchanges – and participating carriers – can use to cope with startup problems. Most importantly, it pushes the selection and payment deadline for Jan.1 plan coverage to Dec. 23.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the batch of “interim final regulations” the title “Maximizing January 1, 2014, Coverage Opportunities” and is preparing to publish the regs in the Federal Register next week.

The Dec. 23 deadline applies to all sorts of exchange plans, including Small Business Health Options Program QHPs, multi-state plans and standalone dental pans, officials said. The original deadline was Dec. 15.

Insurers selling commercial plans through the exchanges with coverage dates starting Jan. 1 now must accept premium payments as late as Dec. 31.

State-based exchanges can set later deadlines for either individual or SHOP coverage.

Managers of state-based exchanges who want to offer more flexibility can push the payment deadline for coverage that starts Jan. 1 back to Jan. 31, “if a QHP issuer is willing to accept such enrollments,” officials said.

Officials also included rules for provider directories.

If a QHP issuer has trouble keeping its provider directory up to date, it should add consumer safeguards, such as using the version of a provider directory available to consumers in a given month to determine whether care from a provider will be classified as in-network care, officials said.

It was the second PPACA-related delay a day after HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before Congress.

Make Tax Day Also Enrollment Deadline, One Health Expert Says

Originally posted November 7, 2013 by Julie Appleby on kaiserhealthnews.org

With one small fix, the administration could satisfy calls from some members of Congress to extend the time people have to enroll in new health insurance through online marketplaces, a health policy expert says.

The fix would not create problems in the industry and would move the deadline to a point when many people have a little extra money, says Brian Haile, senior vice president for health policy at tax preparation firm Jackson Hewitt.

Haile says pushing the current March 31 deadline to April 15 would ensure more people have cash from tax refunds to buy insurance – and would not really change the effective date of coverage beyond the current deadline.

That’s because there is a mid-month cutoff for coverage to begin on the first day of the following month. Policies for those who sign up at the end of March or on tax day would be the same: May 1.

While no specific new open enrollment end date has been proposed by lawmakers, several members of Congress of both parties are considering legislation amid the ongoing difficulties with healthcare.gov, the federal insurance website operating in 36 states.

Insurers are generally opposed to an extension, saying they based their premium rates for next year on the idea that the enrollment period would end March 31. Delaying the penalty for not having coverage or extending the open enrollment period could result in higher premiums in the future, the industry’s trade lobby has warned.

Actuaries say that insurers assumed in their premium calculations that most people would sign up by mid-December for coverage to begin Jan. 1, granting them an entire year of premium revenue.

Insurers also are concerned that the problem-plagued federal healthcare.gov website has increased chances that the people who soldier through the hassles of enrolling are likely to be those with costly medical conditions who were shut out of coverage previously. Healthy customers are needed to balance the risk  – and cost — in the insurance pool. Add to that the talk of extending enrollment deadlines, and insurers see more revenue slipping away, eaten up by medical inflation and fewer months to collect premium payments during the year.

Looking at expected medical inflation for next year, every month’s delay probably corresponds to an average of two-thirds of 1 percent  higher cost for the insurers, said David Axene, fellow of the Society of Actuaries. “That starts to creep into the amount of margin built into rates.”

Haile, a former director of the Insurance Exchange Planning Initiative of Tennessee, argues that granting a short enrollment extension could help insurers pick up additional younger or healthier consumers. Some of those customers may have been sitting on the sidelines because they are strapped for extra cash until they get their tax returns.

Insurers “are not going to lose revenue, but will pick up some young invincibles,” Haile said.

Although federal officials are not talking about changing the enrollment period – they see getting the website fixed as the top priority — the administration has moved to resolve an issue about timing. The problem was that even though the law allows the enrollment season to continue until the end of March, anyone purchasing a policy after Feb. 15 would have faced a penalty. So the administration granted an extra six weeks for people to avoid a penalty in 2014 for not having coverage. The tax penalty is $95 or 1 percent of household income, whichever is greater.

Why employers need to pay attention to ACA's insurance exchanges

Originally posted November 06, 2013 by Al Karr on www.federaltimes.com

When the Affordable Care Act first passed, most self-insured employers thought they wouldn't need to pay much attention to the new health insurance exchanges (or marketplaces) created by the law. After all, they were intended to help uninsured people get access to insurance, and their employees were obviously insured. And President Obama did promise that if people liked their employer coverage, they would get to keep it. So there wasn't really anything for self-insured employers to worry about, right?

Well, it turns out that things aren't that simple. Employers do need to pay attention to the exchanges that have launched in their states — either by the state or the federal government — because even if their employees don't use them, the functioning of the exchanges depends pretty heavily on some critical interactions among exchanges, employers, and their employees.

Most employers are aware by now that the requirement for large employers to offer coverage has been delayed for one year. But there are still many provisions in the ACA that place burdens and obligations on employers related to the exchanges. Most importantly, all employers (regardless of whether they currently offer insurance) must still provide notification to their employees describing the exchanges, and explaining the implications of applying for a tax credit on the exchange. There are also regulatory processes for exchanges to verify with employers information that individuals provide on exchange enrollment applications.

So employers are starting to realize that they really do need a communications strategy for how to tackle exchange education with their employees. Simply mailing the required notification form to all employees and calling it a day won't cut it.

Confused employees

Employees are going to have questions — lots of them. Some have been following the health care reform discussion, and those that hadn't been following it probably are now, thanks to the major issues the federal exchange has been having since its launch on October 1. Employees are seeing TV ads, print ads in magazines and newspapers, in addition to the media coverage on the exchange launch. And policy experts have noticed that some of these advertisements are totally devoid of any mention that the exchange is Obamacare or the ACA, and most don't mention anything at all about the individual mandate and that the exchanges are how to fulfill the mandate.

Employees could come into contact with navigators, certified application counselors, or in-person assisters (individuals hired by exchanges to assist with enrollment), all of which will be emphasizing the exchanges and the individual mandate, but probably don't know much about employer-sponsored plans in general, let alone each individual's circumstances regarding employer-sponsored coverage.

Recent polls have shown that as many as half of Americans believe the ACA was either repealed, or held unconstitutional, so these messages will no doubt be confusing for employees to hear. Despite all of the media coverage of the disastrous exchange launch, there are still people out there who might know about exchanges, but don't know what the ACA means to them.

Employers should be taking action now to devise a communications strategy aimed at their employees that is relevant to their workforces and fits appropriately within their company cultures. We all know that employees don't read the volumes of (boring) information employers provide during open enrollment season. Educating employees about exchanges is going to require a different and more ongoing approach. Some of the tactics employers should consider include:


  • Human resources staff should be meeting with executive leadership to devise and invest in an employee communications strategy
  • Contracting with a call center to do outbound calling to every employee
  • Requiring all employees to meet face-to-face with an HR staff member
  • Producing short videos about the exchanges for use in company communications
  • Requiring attendance at "all staff" meetings
  • Creating one-pagers to post on company intranet sites or to distribute through company newsletters


One thing that has been discussed by some employers, but that may not be the best thing to rely on as a sole tactic, are the navigators. While a lot of organizations have become navigators, there is general agreement among policy makers that the program itself is woefully underfunded. And since some exchanges are run by states themselves, and the federal government runs others, it’s anticipated that the number of navigators hired and the training they will receive will vary from state to state. Also, there is no statutory requirement that navigators be trained on the nuances of employer-sponsored coverage, so there is no guarantee that they will be able to answer employees' questions about the coverage they are offered at work.

Americans will have an extra six weeks to buy health coverage before facing penalty

Originally posted by Sandhya Somashekhar, Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin on https://www.washingtonpost.com

The Obama administration said last Wednesday night that it will give Americans who buy health insurance through the new online marketplaces an extra six weeks to obtain coverage before they incur a penalty.

The announcement means that those who buy coverage through the exchange will have until March 31 to sign up for a plan, according to an official with the Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration officials said that the rejiggered deadline is unrelated to the many technical problems that have emerged with the Web site, HealthCare.gov, in its first three weeks. Instead, they said, it is designed to clear up a timing confusion about the 2010 law, which for the first time requires most Americans to buy health coverage or face a penalty.

Under the law, health plans available through the new federal or state marketplaces will start Jan. 1, but the open enrollment period runs through the end of March. The law also says that people will be fined only if they do not have coverage for three months in a row. The question has been this: Do people need to be covered by March 31, or merely to have signed up by then, given that insurance policies have a brief lag before they take effect?

The administration made clear Wednesday night that people who buy coverage at any point during the open enrollment period will not pay a penalty.

It is the latest sign that the health-care law remains a moving target, even after the launch of the federal insurance marketplace, which has faced myriad problems that have frustrated many people trying to sign up for coverage.

Contractors and others have begun assigning blame for the Web site troubles, and the fault-finding will get its first extensive public airing Thursday, when four of the contractors involved in the project will testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In the written testimony submitted to the panel in advance, CGI Federal, the main contractor on the project, takes partial blame for the site’s shortcomings. But it also notes that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within HHS, was the “ultimate responsible party for the end-to-end performance” of the site. And it blames a piece created by another contractor, Quality Software Services (QSSI), for creating the initial bottleneck.

QSSI built part of the online registration system that crashed shortly after the Oct. 1 launch and locked out many people for days. In a statement, the company counters that it was not the only one responsible for the registration system, which is now working.

“There are a number of other components to the registration system, all of which must work together seamlessly to ensure registration,” said Matt Stearns, a spokesman for UnitedHealth Group, the parent company for QSSI. “The [QSSI-built] tool has been working well for weeks.”

But both contractors are likely to be taken to task by Republican and Democratic committee members. They were among the vendors who testified at a Sept. 10 Energy and Commerce Committee hearing that their parts of the project were moving along well, and that the Web site would be ready Oct. 1. Those assurances are likely to be questioned Thursday.

The hearing is the first of many planned by Republicans, who are expected not only to question the contractors but also to examine the administration’s management of the project. Some Republicans have called for the ouster of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is scheduled to appear before the panel next Wednesday.

President Obama and his deputies have given no indication that they are considering replacing Sebelius. White House press secretary Jay Carney has consistently defended her, and officials have been focusing on fixing the site rather than assessing blame for its defects.

The administration, however, has sought to assure jittery business leaders and insurers that can fix the enrollment system. On Tuesday, Vice President Biden told business supporters in a conference call that the nation’s best technology minds were working on the site and urged them to “stick with us.” And on Wednesday, top Obama advisers met with insurance executives to discuss system repairs.

CMS had enormous responsibility, and was charged with ensuring that there would be a mechanism for millions of Americans to easily sign up for coverage in time for some of the law’s main benefits to begin Jan. 1. Officials have said ease of signing up is critical to the administration meeting its goal of getting 7 million uninsured people — many of them young and healthy — to sign up.

But the agency assumed an outsize role in the management of the project, coordinating the activities of 55 contractors rather than hiring a separate firm to serve as a systems integrator. That is likely to be a key issue during Thursday’s hearing.

People familiar with the project have said the time frame was too tight for adequate testing, which one source said would have highlighted the problems.

There also have been inconsistencies about how and when the decision was made to scrap a key feature of the Web site, with QSSI telling congressional investigators that it did not know about the major change until the site’s launch. But in the written testimony the company plans to deliver Thursday, it says it found out shortly before the rollout date.

Republicans have been eager to learn more about how and when the decision was made to end that feature. The feature would have allowed people to browse plans and rates before signing up for an account. Technology experts have said the last-minute decision to stop it put too much pressure on a different tool that was set up to handle a small number of simultaneous users, crashing the site.

People familiar with the project give conflicting accounts of the reason for the move. The decision was made at a two-day meeting in late September to which CMS invited all its major contractors. According to one person familiar with the project, CGI gave a presentation that convinced CMS officials that the shopping feature was not ready.

Another person close to the project had a slightly different account, saying that CGI believed that the feature was, in fact, ready.

Republican lawmakers have alleged that the administration made the change to hide the cost of insurance plans from consumers.

“Evidence is mounting that political considerations motivated the decision,” said a letter sent to two administration officials Tuesday from members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, including Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

Lena H. Sun, Ed O’Keefe and Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.

State exchanges not viable choice for active employees

Originally posted October 03, 2013 by Andrea Davis on https://ebn.benefitnews.com

The state and federally facilitated health care exchanges are not a realistic option for active employees, according to one expert. Bryce Williams, managing director of exchange solutions for Towers Watson maintains that while the public exchanges offer a good solution for early retirees and COBRA-eligible participants, “it’s not yet a viable alternative to move [active employees] to state or public exchanges.”

Employers showed little confidence in public exchanges, according to a recent survey from Towers Watson that was released prior to the public exchange launch earlier this week. Eighty-eight percent of employers said they were not confident that the public health insurance exchanges would provide a viable alternative to employer-sponsored coverage for active full-time employees in 2014.

“They were prescient in terms of what would happen given the complexity of the launch,” says Williams.

Employers expressed skepticism even heading into 2015, with 71% saying they were not confident the public exchanges would provide a viable alternative to employer-sponsored coverage for active full-time employees.

“We believe later this fall public exchanges will right themselves and be in good shape, but certainly they’ve gotten off to a bumpy start,” says Williams, adding he continues to see employers not making any big changes this year. “They want to see results.”

Still, “public exchanges continue to be a great alternative to early retiree coverage, to any of the mini-meds they’re providing to seasonal and part-time workers – this [public exchange] is a vastly better ecosystem and [offers] better coverage,” he says.

Towers Watson runs three private exchanges: OneExchange Retiree, a Medicare exchange for retirees; OneExchange Active, a self-insured exchange for active employees; and OneExchange Access, a concierge service that connects part-time employees, early retirees, dependents and others who aren’t eligible for employer-sponsored coverage, to the state exchanges.