States Fear Loss of Health Care Aid
Original article https://www.benefitspro.com
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Thousands of people with serious medical problems are in danger of losing coverage under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul because of cost overruns, state officials say.
At risk is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, a transition program that's become a lifeline for the so-called "uninsurables" — people with serious medical conditions who can't get coverage elsewhere. The program helps bridge the gap for those people until next year, when under the new law insurance companies will be required to accept people regardless of their medical problems.
In a letter this week to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, state officials said they were "blindsided" and "very disappointed" by a federal proposal they contend would shift the risk for cost overruns to states in the waning days of the program. About 100,000 people are currently covered.
"We are concerned about what will become of our high risk members' access to this decent and affordable coverage," wrote Michael Keough, chairman of the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans. States and local nonprofits administer the program in 21 states, and the federal government runs the remaining plans.
"Enrollees also appear to be at risk of increases in both premiums and out-of-pocket costs that may make continued enrollment cost prohibitive," added Keough, who runs North Carolina's program. He warned of "large-scale enrollee terminations at this critical transition time."
The crisis is surfacing at a politically awkward time for the Obama administration, which is trying to persuade states to embrace a major expansion of Medicaid under the health care law. It may undercut one of the main arguments proponents of the expansion are making: that Washington is a reliable financial partner.
The root of the problem is that the federal health care law capped spending on the program at $5 billion, and the money is running out because the beneficiaries turned out to be costlier to care for than expected. Advanced heart disease and cancer are common diagnoses for the group.
Obama did not ask for any additional funding for the program in his latest budget, and a Republican bid to keep the program going by tapping other funds in the health care law failed to win support in the House last week.
There was no immediate response from HHS, which has given the state-based program until next Wednesday to respond to proposed contract terms for the program's remaining seven months.
Delivered last Friday, the new contract stipulated that states will be reimbursed "up to a ceiling."
"The 'ceiling' part is the issue for us," Keough said in an interview. "They are shifting the risk from the federal government, for a program that has experienced huge cost overruns on a per-member basis, to states. And that's a tall order."
At his news conference this week, Obama acknowledged the rollout of his health care law wouldn't be perfect. There will be "glitches and bumps" he said, and his team is committed to working through them. However, it's unclear how the program could get more money without the cooperation of Republicans in Congress.
The pre-existing conditions plan was intended only as a stopgap. The law's main push to cover the uninsured starts next year, with subsidized private insurance available through new state-based markets, as well as an expanded version of Medicaid for low-income people. At the same time, virtually all Americans will be required to carry a policy, or pay a fine.
States are free to accept or reject the Medicaid expansion, and the new problems with the stopgap insurance plan could well have a bearing on their decisions.
Copyright 2013 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Counting to 90: ACA and the waiting period
Original article https://ebn.benefitnews.com
By Keith McMurdy
Under the Affordable Care Act, once we decide who we have to offer coverage to, then we have to decide when they get the coverage. Generally the new rule is that a waiting period for coverage cannot exceed 90 days. More recently, the IRS has given us proposed rules on the 90 day waiting period. As with all proposed rules, they are not final until they are final, but these do give employers some additional guidance on how to maintain the correct waiting period.
The proposed regulations define a waiting period as “the period that must pass before coverage for an employee or dependent who is otherwise eligible to enroll under the terms of a group health plan can become effective.” What this means is that once eligibility requirements are met (meaning that an employee is "full time"), coverage must begin 90 calendar days after eligibility is obtained. This includes weekends and holidays. If day 91 falls on a weekend or holiday, the plan sponsor may elect to have coverage be effective earlier than the 90th day, for administrative convenience, but may not delay coverage past the 91st day. So plan sponsors should eliminate any plan provisions that provide that coverage begins at some time after the 90th day (like the first day of the month after the expiration of the 90 day period.)
The proposed rule also provides that a plan may impose eligibility criteria such as completion of a period of days of service (which may not exceed 90 days), attainment of a specific job category, or other criteria, so long as they have not been designed to avoid compliance with the 90 day waiting period. For example, a plan provides coverage only to employees with the title of manager. John is hired on September 1, 2014 as an associate. On April 1, 2015, he is promoted to manager. John must be offered coverage no later than July 1, 2015. This does not mean that John might not have otherwise been offered coverage as a full-time employee. So be wary of reading too much into this job classification option. We still have to measure how many hours John works even as an associate.
Also, there had been some question about certificates of creditable coverage being required after January 1, 2014. The proposed rules provided that these certificates will be phased out by 2015 because ACA's prohibition on exclusions from coverage due to pre-existing health conditions renders them obsolete. Since pre-existing condition exclusions have to be eliminated for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, these certificates are no longer necessary. But they still have to be provided throughout the 2014 plan year.
There are other specifics in the proposed rules that will have to be fleshed out and, again, these rules are proposed and subject to change. But they serve as an ongoing reminder that plan sponsors have to be watchful of how they administer their plans and must make sure that their stated eligibility rules satisfy the requirements of both ERISA and ACA.
The Tomato Paradox of Health Care Reform
Original article https://analytics.ubabenefits.com
By Mick Constantinou
There is an old paradoxical adage that, “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, while wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”
In terms of the promises of the health care reform law(keep, access and affordable), paradoxes like the tomato have come to light, but the Tomato Paradox relates directly to the difference between having knowledge and commanding wisdom.
Most Americans are aware of health care reform and the massive changes to how health insurance and health care will be accessed and regulated beginning this fall. Some companies and individuals have the knowledge (or think they have the knowledge) of how the law will impact them directly, but the variable is the source of their knowledge and whether or not that knowledge is based in fact, political rhetoric or meetings at the water cooler.
The other variable is wisdom. Employers may have the knowledge of “what they must do,” or “do not have to do,” based on the number of FTEs they employ, whether they are fully-insured or self-insured and other factors, but many have not been afforded access to the wisdom to answer the simple question: “What should we do?”
Regardless of whether an employer decides to “play or pay” in 2014 and beyond, there are other subjective factors (hidden costs) of health care reform that will impact company culture and strategic direction. These factors need to be considered in concert with the results of modeling and compliance tools orchestrated by a trusted advisor, including but not limited to:
- Increased reporting burdens, whether you “play or pay”
- Recruitment and retention challenges related to changes in total compensation
- Impacts to employee productivity and morale
- Changes in taxable income for both employers and employees
In simple terms, knowledge is information and facts of which someone is aware, and wisdom is the ability to make correct, common sense judgments and decisions based on the facts. Wisdom is an intangible quality gained through experience and expertise.
What separates insurance sales people from trusted advisors is the experience, expertise and wisdom brought to the unique challenges faced (and overcome) during the benefits renewal process in the era of health care reform.
What’s Ahead this Year as Health Insurance Exchanges are Rolled-out Nationwide
Original article https://www.theihcc.com
By Cindy Gillespie
Exchanges are a key component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Here’s a snapshot of exchange developments across the country, potential regulations to watch for, and where exchanges might be by October 2013 for open enrollment and by January 1, 2014, when they are slated to “go live” nationwide.
Health Insurances Exchanges: The Vision
The ACA directed each state to establish two types of exchanges or have the federal government do so on its behalf — the American Health Benefits Exchange (AHBE) for individuals and the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) for small employers. Under the statute, individuals are eligible to buy insurance on the AHBE if they are:
- a U.S. citizen or legal alien
- not incarcerated
- a resident of the state in which the exchange is based
AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFITS EXCHANGE
The ACA includes robust premium and cost-sharing subsidies for individuals who purchase insurance through the individual exchange who are living at levels between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level — between approximately $12,000 and $46,000 a year — and who are not eligible for other public insurance programs (i.e. Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare) and who do not receive “affordable” insurance coverage through their employers (that meets minimum value standards).
Employers which have more than 50 employees whom are eligible for tax credit subsidies, either because the employer does not offer coverage or because the coverage offered is unaffordable to the employee according to ACA standards, or not of minimum value, will be subject to a penalty.
SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH OPTIONS PROGRAM
Meanwhile, the ACA allows employers with up to 100 full-time employees to purchase insurance through SHOP, although the state has the option to limit access to employers with 50 employees or less for the first two years. Most states have taken advantage of this option in order to maintain consistency with the outside market’s definition of “small employer.” States also maintain the option to allow employers with more than 100 employees to purchase insurance through the SHOP beginning in 2017, with approval of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Tax credit subsidies are also available to employers who purchase coverage on SHOP for employers with less than 25 employees who have an average taxable wage under $50,000 per year. Employers cannot claim the tax credit for more than two consecutive years.
Health Insurances Exchanges: 3 Primary Models
Although the ACA envisioned 50 different exchanges championed by individual states, the reality of ACA implementation has been far different. Indeed, political, logistical, and operational challenges faced by both HHS and the states have led only a subset of states to embrace exchanges. The update below provides a snapshot of how exchanges are developing across the country.
1. STATE-BASED EXCHANGES
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia are developing State-based Exchanges as envisioned under the ACA. These states have received “conditional approval” from HHS to operate them for the 2014 plan year. Under these exchanges, states execute all functions but may turn to the federal government for issues such as tax-credit eligibility determination, risk adjustment, and reinsurance.
While several of these states have been making great strides toward October 1, 2013 open enrollment, others are relatively behind in the planning process and may struggle to meet the impending deadlines. For example, some states still lack legal authority to operate a State-based Exchange, while others have yet to procure any IT-related services necessary to make the exchange function.
2. STATE PARTNERSHIP EXCHANGES
Seven states have received conditional approval from HHS to operate State Partnership Exchanges. This exchange model, not envisioned under the ACA, is an option created by HHS for states that may want to play a small role in exchange operations either permanently or as they move toward a State-based Exchange. States have two primary options for pursuing State Partnership Exchanges: a plan management partnership or a consumer partnership. States also have the choice to participate in both partnership models.
States participating in a plan management partnership assume responsibility for issuer account management and issuer oversight as well as monitoring, quality reporting, and data collection. In addition, these states also play a key role in determining qualified health plan (QHP) certification. Plan management partnerships will recommend which plans should be certified as QHPs to HHS, which has the legal authority to make QHP certifications.
States also have the option to pursue a consumer partnership exchange. States choosing this approach control the day-to-day management of Navigators and in-person consumer assistors, and will have the option to engage in outreach, education, and branding activities. Navigators and in-person consumer assistors will be the “boots on the ground” in states to help educate consumers about plan choices and coverage options. For states choosing a Federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE), consumer partnership states oversee and provide technical assistance to Navigators, but HHS retains authority over the Navigator programs.
3. FEDERALLY-FACILITATED EXCHANGES
Twenty-six states have decided not to pursue a State-based or Partnership Exchange. In these states, the federal government is establishing a Federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE). Under an FFE, the federal government performs all exchange functions with states, maintaining the option to make final Medicaid determination and operate its reinsurance program. Although the option to operate reinsurance programs has yet to gain traction, many FFE states have expressed interest in maintaining the responsibility to make final Medicaid determination for individuals assessed as eligible for Medicaid.
Marketplace Plan Management
Several federal requirements necessary for health insurance plans to be qualified in order to be offered on the exchange are already criteria commonly examined as part of routine, state insurance regulatory activities. HHS has indicated that its preference is to integrate states’ existing regulatory activities into its decision-making for qualified health plan (QHP) certification, even in states with an operating FFE.
To further facilitate this relationship, HHS has indicated it will offer states a marketplace plan management option, essentially allowing states to perform activities associated with a plan management partnership but without requiring them to submit a formal exchange blueprint. HHS guidance dated February 20, 2013 also indicates that states can apply for federal funds to support these activities, similarly as it did for the State-based and State Partnership models.
3 Issues to Watch in 2013
As the clock ticks on the path to open enrollment, there are several issues still under consideration that are worth tracking, particularly for the small and large employer communities.
Recent guidance from HHS indicates that employee choice and premium aggregation will not be required of SHOP exchanges in the 2014 plan year. In the same set of proposed rules, HHS also indicates that federally-facilitated SHOPs (FF-SHOPs) will not offer these services in their first year of operation.
As you may recall, employee choice and premium aggregation (the process of collecting premiums from qualified employers and delivering a single streamlined payment to insurers) are two tools at the disposal of SHOP exchanges to help drive enrollment. This recently proposed approach could potentially undermine the viability of SHOP exchanges and the small business market nationwide.
Additional rules from HHS surrounding 10 essential health benefits indicate that to meet these requirements outside the exchange, health insurance plans will need to either embed pediatric oral services, the tenth category of essential health benefits coverage, or be “reasonably assured” that the individual has obtained dental coverage from an exchange- certified, stand-alone dental plan. This is a new proposal from HHS and is therefore receiving significant scrutiny from several stakeholder groups, as the requirements could cause operational challenges in the market. Stay tuned.
HHS released additional details regarding employers’ interface with the exchange in January. Most interestingly, the rules verify that there is no central databank containing details on employer-sponsored health insurance plans. As a result, until that information is available, exchange applicants must attest to the details surrounding their employer-sponsored health insurance plans when seeking health insurance on the exchange. The exchange will then use available data sources to attempt to verify individuals’ claims. Absent inconsistencies in available information, the exchange will be permitted to proceed to enroll the applicant in a health insurance plan along with the applicable subsidies. Employers will be notified of employees who claim a tax credit on the exchange. However, exchanges must select a valid sample of people for whom employer coverage details could not be verified and verbally call employers for additional information. If the exchange cannot obtain information within 90 days, eligibility will remain unchanged.
Looking Toward 2014
The issues described above are only a select set of developments that have emerged in recent months. Indeed, there are a host of unanswered questions and operational challenges that stand between today and open enrollment. ACA implementation process has passed the window for planned delay. Employers and the health benefits industry should expect for exchanges to “go live” and for tax credits to be available beginning January 1, 2014. The Stakeholders should prepare for implementation, albeit with hiccups along the way, as scheduled.
Health law’s mandate, tax credit could help or hurt employers
Original article https://www.upi.com
By Andrew Hedlund – Medill News Service
Business owners view the new health care law through many different paradigms. Some see it as onerous, while others find it helpful. Research suggests that one of its most contentious provisions, the employer mandate, will have minimal impact.
Joe Olivo is a small business owner who finds the new health care law costly and confusing, particularly next year’s employer mandate. Mark Hodesh is a small business owner who finds the law to be a boon to his business.
Some business owners like Hodesh, the owner of Downtown Home and Garden in Ann Arbor, Mich., qualify for the tax credit, which is available to businesses with fewer than 25 employees to offer health insurance, and do not worry about the mandate, which only kicks in at the 50-employee mark.
Others like Olivo, who is a co-owner of Perfect Printing in Morristown, N.J., do not qualify for the credit and say the requirement that businesses with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or face fines prevents them from growing.
Starting next year, employers that have 50 or more workers that are full-time, defined in the law as those working more than 30 hours a week, are required to provide coverage for their workers. For those with fewer than 25 employees, they receive a tax credit now of 35 percent of the cost of their employee health insurance costs, and that will increase to 50 percent next year. According to the Congressional Research Service, more than 90 percent of businesses had fewer than 50 employees.
Olivo’s business has 40 full-time employees and offers health insurance. With that number of full-time workers, he will not be subject to the mandate, but it gives him pause when deciding whether to expand the business.
In fact, Olivo is purposely avoiding hitting the 50-employee mark. Any new employees he hires work on a part-time basis. This decision is rooted in the uncertainty surrounding health care costs.
“If I see premiums are not going through the roof,” he said, “and I see there is a stable known situation where I can reasonably expect what will happen, I will have a better incentive to take the risk with my money and grow.”
What he has seen so far is not promising though, he said.
“(What) we’ve already started to see is how the regulation, the amount of work, for a company just under 50 employees,” Olivo said, “that we have to decide to make sure we’re in compliance — start looking at our employee’s hours, making sure we don’t go over the 50 mark because of the severe ramifications,” referring to law’s penalty of $2,000 per employee for any companies with 50 or more employees that don’t provide health insurance. The penalty would not apply to the first 30 employees.
Olivo also said the lack of finality in the IRS’s rules further confuses employers as 2014 draws closer. The agency will hold a public hearing on this provision Tuesday.
However, research on similar employer requirements in San Francisco and Massachusetts by the Urban Institute, National Bureau of Economic Research and the National Opinion Research Center found that the notion the requirement to provide insurance would lead to job loss or could lead to fewer employers offering health insurance was overstated.
In fact, the National Opinion Research Center found in its 2008 study that businesses with three or more employees offering health insurance in Massachusetts increased from 73 percent to 79 percent, though employers were less inclined to consider terminating coverage than national companies.
A study sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that, based on San Francisco’s efforts, employers nationwide will be less likely to choose the penalty option of this requirement because the Affordable Care Act lacks a public option. San Francisco does offer the equivalent of a public option, which some employers may find preferable.
Elise Gould, a health care economist at the Economic Policy Institute, said she expects the effects of the employer mandate to be minimal.
“I don’t think that it is going to lead to much job loss,” she said. “There may be some shifting in hours to avoid the mandate. I think that would be small though.”
Gould also added that she expects employers to take many different factors into account when considering expansion, with the insurance requirement being just one small factor.
The law attempts to aid small businesses with tax credits as well, though several restrictions come with them: firms must have fewer than 25 employees and pay them less than $50,000 in wages each year, meaning Olivo’s business is ineligible for a credit while Hodesh’s business qualifies.
He met the requirements and received a tax credit, allowing him to hire another employee.
Hodesh has 12 employees so he doesn’t need to worry about crossing the mandate’s 50-employee threshold soon.
“There are pluses and minuses to all issues,” Hodesh said. “And I think that people are focusing on the minus side of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. They are missing out on all the positives of the law.”
Offering health insurance to his employees is also an important strategy for his store.
“We provide health care as a business tool,” Hodesh said. “We attract and keep good long-term employees, and we don’t have high turnover and we don’t have to train a lot.”
Starting around 2000, though, his company’s health care costs tripled, but the tax credit eased that cost.
“(The credit) gave us the confidence to hire a new person,” he said. “It’s a good deal for me.”
The wellness path not taken
Original article: https://ebn.benefitnews.com
By Kathleen Koster
With full implementation of health care reform marching along, the landscape of employer-sponsored health benefits will never be the same. As employers turn to private and public exchanges beginning in 2014 as allowed under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the purpose for and implementation of worksite wellness programs also are likely to change.
Dr. Matthew Liss, East Coast medical director of NBCUniversal Health Services, fears that employers may not see wellness as their responsibility or employees will be less engaged in wellness initiatives because employers won't work as closely with vendors in the exchange.
Employers may not have access to health data as in the past, which could influence their investment in wellness programs, as well as impact incentives for healthy behavior. Liss points to premium reductions for nonsmokers or incentives for going to the gym that are currently offered by working hand in hand with health care providers. Employers may lose this ability to work with vendors while developing wellness incentives if employees receive coverage through a public or private exchange.
Certain populations could lose out
Bryce Williams, the president and CEO of Extend Health, Inc., which operates the nation's largest private exchange recently acquired by Towers Watson, believes that the most likely demographic to move employees into public exchanges would be small employers with 500 or fewer employees. Employers in this situation would be more likely to stop providing or lessen wellness services to workers than those entering private exchanges, he says.
In general, small employers don't have data to show them the best practices in wellness programs, explains Dave Ratcliffe, a principal at Buck Consulting. This could remain the case for small employers whose workers enter the public marketplaces. Ratcliffe adds that the more employers measure their initiatives, the more investment they make into wellness.
In the retail industry, where part-time workers outnumber full-time workers, some employers will reframe their total reward strategy for a post-2014 health care reform world. Some of Ratcliffe's clients in this sector are considering restructuring jobs and recalibrating total remuneration in order to attract, retain and motivate the workforce. For example, he says an employer may limit part-time workers to clock fewer than 30 hours each week, while rewarding top talent with over 30 hours of scheduled work so they can receive the best health benefits as defined under PPACA. While such a workforce restructuring may require more part-time employees who work under 30 hours per week, this framework could be a motivational carrot to drive talent.
Instead of developing wellness programs exclusively to drive down the health cost curve, employers will use wellness to improve population health and the overall productivity.
"Even if your employees are getting coverage through the exchange now, you want to make sure that they are healthy because a healthier employee is a more productive employee," says Julie Stich, research director at the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans.
Williams adds that large employers could leverage any savings they absorb through an exchange setup by reinvesting them into employees, especially into their wellness component.
Giving up a global edge?
According to a recent report from Buck Consultants, 87% of global employers recognize managing employee health as their responsibility in 2012, up from 75% in 2010. Further, 49% of multinational employers now have global health promotion strategies, up from 34% in 2004.
Based on these results, employers believe they need a healthy and productive workforce to have an edge in a global economy.
"If you look globally, the universal responses from all of the countries that productivity and reducing presenteeism was the No. 1 goal for their wellness program, [whereas] for U.S. companies, the No. 1 goal is reducing health care costs," Ratcliffe says. For most employers outside the U.S., employees receive coverage from a government-sponsored system, yet they continue to view wellness initiatives as paramount to driving a profit.
Further, the 2014 reinsurance tax (which could increase employers' health insurance costs by 1-2%), a looming 2018 excise tax, mandated benefits and auto-enrollment could all cause employers to consider shifting cost downward and investing more into wellness. In recent years, plan sponsors have managed a 5% trend rate by predominantly cutting benefits or cost-shifting. "From an attraction and retention standpoint, how much more can we afford to continue to cut benefits? So we're left with wellness to manage costs instead of shifting costs," says Ratcliffe.
In the new health care reform environment, Ratcliffe believes incentives and disincentives will play an even larger role in motivating employees to participate and succeed in wellness. PPACA permits an increase of allowable incentive dollars from 20% to 30%, and more employers are using outcomes-based incentives to drive results.
Overall, the U.S. spends roughly 18% of their total GDP on health care, while the rest of the world spends 9.5% on average. However the U.S.'s average rate of obesity is nearly double the rest of the world's (28% compared to 15%), according to 2012 OECD health data.
"Regardless of health care reform, we're not going to be able to compete in the future without making a change," says Ratcliffe.
Vendor relationships also will morph
The private exchange market, whether insured or self-funded, will function more like a group exchange, where the employer contracts with the exchange instead of sending people individually to a public exchange. For these private exchanges, "employers are not losing access to that data because they are still in a group world in 2014," Ratcliffe explains.
Public exchanges may tell a different story. Employers won't get data for people sent to public exchanges, but Ratcliffe doesn't expect many employers will go this route initially in 2014. Farther down the road when there's a viable individual market similar to Medicare, vendor relationships may change.
Employers' relationships with health vendors, in addition to how they measure and run wellness programs, are sure to change in coming years as employers consider private and public exchanges as options to provide insurance coverage to workers. It remains to be seen how exchanges will change wellness initiatives, but it's clear that wellness programs will always be a business imperative to keep workers healthy, productive and satisfied with their employer.
Many workers aren’t ready for health care reform
Original article https://www.kansascity.com
By Diane Stafford
National health care reform and cost-cutting by employers is changing the way many workers get health insurance, but a majority of employees may not understand what’s ahead.
The Aflac WorkForces Report, the insurer’s third annual employee benefits study, polled 5,299 employees across the country and found that three-fourths said they had never heard the phrase “consumer-driven health care.”
That’s a problem. Consumer-driven health care is the direction the nation is moving. It’s the underlying concept that requires individuals to take more control over their health care spending.
“It may be referred to as ‘consumer-driven health care,’ but in actuality, consumers aren't the ones driving these changes, so it’s no surprise that many feel unprepared,” said Audrey Boone Tillman, executive vice president of corporate services at Aflac.
There’s another problem. The survey found that more than half of the workers polled said they preferred not to have greater control over their health insurance options. Fifty-four percent said they don’t have the time or knowledge to manage the responsibility.
How will workers learn to navigate the world of health care and insurance choices? Seventy-five percent said they expect their employers to educate them about the details of reform.
There’s another problem. Only 13 percent of the 1,884 “benefits decision-makers” in organizations reached in a companion poll said they thought educating employees about health care reform is “important” to their organizations.
At least most employees realize they’re not ready. About half said they fear they will leave their families less protected if they make poor insurance plan choices.
The poll, released Wednesday, emphasized the education challenges as employers shift away from their health care benefits.
One-third of the employees polled said they weren’t knowledgeable about health savings accounts, three-fourths said they weren’t knowledgeable about the impending federal or state health insurance exchanges, half said they weren’t knowledgeable about health reimbursement accounts and one-fourth said they weren’t knowledgeable about flexible spending accounts.
All of those are benefits options for employers to subsidize employee health care in different ways or exit health benefits entirely.
“It’s time for consumers to face reality,” Tillman said. “The responsibility lies in the hands of consumers to educate themselves.”
The Exchanges Really will Open Oct. 1st
Source: https://www.benefitspro.com
By Allison Bell
Photo: United States Mission Geneva / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-2.0
U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Friday assured yet another congressional panel that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exchanges will be opening on schedule.
"We are moving ahead," Sebelius said at a House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee hearing on the HHS fiscal year 2014 budget request. "We are definitely going to be open for open enrollment starting Oct. 1 of 2013."
Federal fiscal year 2014 will start Oct. 1.
Sebelius has given similar assurances about progress at the HHS PPACA exchange development program at HHS budget hearings organized by the Senate Finance Committee's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee and at the House Ways and Means Committee.
PPACA calls for HHS to work with state regulators to start exchanges, or health insurance supermarkets for individuals and small groups.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., suggested at the HELP hearing Wednesday that it looks as if the exchange program may be headed for a "train wreck."
Congress has provided only $1 billion of the $10 billion that analysts originally said HHS would need to set up the exchange program, Sebelius said.
"We've judiciously used those resources," and efforts to set up the "Hub," the data center and call center to be at the heart of the exchange system, are going well, Sebelius said.
HHS will transfer money from prevention programs to fund exchange education and enrollment efforts, Sebelius said.
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., said Sebelius should speak more frankly about the funding obstacles that Republicans have put in the way of PPACA implementation.
"They can't come back and criticize if the outreach doesn't occur if they're not funding it," Pallone said.
Republicans on the subcommittee asked whether Sebelius really has to use prevention fund money to pay for PPACA exchange outreach programs.
Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, a medical doctor, asked Sebelius about the HHS decision to abruptly suspend enrollment in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program, a health insurance program for uninsured people with health problems that make buying medically underwritten coverage difficult.
He referred to a woman with lymphoma who said she learned HHS had shut down the PCIP program the day before she had been about to submit her application.
"Is it Obamacare or Obamadon'tcare?" Burgess asked. "Rather than spending [prevention fund money] on advertising for a program that may not even work on Oct. 1, or Jan. 1, why should we not transfer money from that fund to actually help the people that you promised to help -- the people with pre-existing conditions?"
Sebelius said Americans like the woman with lymphoma will benefit greatly starting Jan. 1, 2014, because, after that date, "no American will ever again be locked out of a health program because of a pre-existing condition."
PCIP was always supposed to be a temporary program, not a permanent solution, and it would not exist if the Republicans had succeeded with their many efforts to repeal PPACA, Sebelius said.
At another point, an exchange between Sebelius and Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., the chairman of the health subcommittee, hinted at the problems that even members of Congress and their staffers may be having with keeping up with PPACA implementation details.
Pitts asked why the PPACA exchanges would not give small businesses a choice of health plans in 2014.
Sebelius had to explain that HHS has decided to let the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) small-group exchanges put off giving employers a chance to offer employees a multi-carrier coverage option.
Each SHOP exchange will still offer the employers themselves a chance to choose from a menu that includes plans from all of the carriers that have agreed to sell plans through that exchange, Sebelius said.
Top Dem Sees 'train wreck' for PPACA
Source: https://www.lifehealthpro.com
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
A senior Democratic senator who helped write the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) stunned administration officials last Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a "train wreck" because of bumbling implementation.
"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.
Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year. Polls show the public remains confused by the complexity of the law, and even many uninsured people are skeptical that they will be helped.
A six-term Democrat, Baucus expects to face a tough re-election in 2014. He's still trying to recover from approval ratings that nosedived amid displeasure with the health care law in his home state.
Normally low-key and supportive, Baucus challenged Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Wednesday's hearing.
He said he's "very concerned" that new health insurance exchanges for consumers and small businesses will not open on time in every state, and that if they do, they might just flop because residents don't have the information they need to make choices.
"The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade," he told Sebelius. "You need to fix this."
Responding to Baucus, Sebelius pointedly noted that Republicans in Congress last year blocked funding for carrying out the health care law, and she had to resort to raiding other departmental funds that were legally available to her.
The administration is asking for $1.5 billion in next year's budget, and Republicans don't seem willing to grant that, either.
At one point, as Sebelius tried to answer Baucus' demand for facts and figures, the senator admonished: "You haven't given me any data; you just give me concepts, frankly."
"I don't know what he's looking at," Sebelius told reporters following her out of the room after Baucus adjourned the hearing. "But we are on track to fully implement marketplaces in Jan. 2014, and to be open for open enrollment."
That open-enrollment launch is only months away, Oct. 1. It's when millions of middle-class consumers who don't get coverage through their jobs will be able to start shopping for a private plan in the new exchanges. They'll also be able to find out if they qualify for tax credits that will lower their premiums. At the same time, low-income people will be steered to government programs, mainly an expanded version of Medicaid.
But half the states, most of them Republican-led, have refused to cooperate in setting up the infrastructure of Obama's law. Others, like Montana, are politically divided. The overhaul law provided that the federal government would step in and run the new markets if a state failed to do so. Envisioned as a fallback, federal control now looks like it will be the norm in about half the country, straining resources.
Administration officials say their public outreach campaign will begin in earnest over the summer. They question the wisdom of bombarding consumers with insurance details now, when there's not yet anything to sign up for. Baucus said in his state, that vacuum has mostly been filled by misinformation.
While some other Democratic lawmakers have privately voiced similar frustrations, most have publicly lauded Sebelius for her department's work. Democrats from reliably blue states have less to worry about, since their governors and legislatures have embraced the law and are working to make it succeed.
In Montana, the legislature rejected Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock's bid for a state-run insurance exchange. The governor is now trying to find a compromise on expanding Medicaid.
Republicans are certain to remind Montana voters next year that Baucus' fingerprints are all over the health care law, even though a similar strategy failed to knock off fellow Democratic Sen. Jon Tester last year.
After the hearing, Baucus' office clarified that he still thinks PPACA is a good law, but he questions how it is being carried out.
Sebelius Says We Have Built the Exchange Hub
Source: https://www.lifehealthpro.com
By Allison Bell
Photo: United States Mission Geneva / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-2.0
U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told members of the House Ways and Means Committee that the exchanges are coming.
"We are confident we will launch the health insurance exchanges," Sebelius testified today at a hearing the committee organized on the Obama administration's HHS budget proposal for fiscal year 2014. "We will be open for open enrollment Oct. 1."
The data hub to be at the heart of the exchange system is "basically completed and paid for," Sebelius said.
The Obama administration has asked for $78 billion in discretionary budget authority for HHS for 2014. HHS could be responsible for a total of $967 billion in outlays over the next 10 years.
Much of the spending would be on programs related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). PPACA calls for HHS to work with the states and the District of Columbia to set up a system of exchanges, or Web-based health insurance markets, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia by Oct. 1, with the first coverage sold to take effect Jan. 1, 2014.
In response to questions about some states' resistance to participating in the exchange program, Sebelius said that 31 states and the District of Columbia are either setting up their own exchanges or working with HHS to set up "partnership" exchanges.
In some other states, officials are saying that their states might take over exchange services once HHS sets up the exchanges, Sebelius said.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, asked about the possibility that congressional resistance to funding the exchange program could interfere with efforts to get the exchanges started on time.
"It would be helpful" if Congress responds positively to HHS requests for funding, Sebelius said.
But "I think we are definitely on track to implement the law as it is anticipated," Sebelius said.
In response to reports that employers are worried about what PPACA will do to insured and self-insured group health plans, Sebelius said she is meeting regularly with employers to allay the concerns and hopes that, once the exchanges are open, employers will like them.
For some employers that are now unable to find or afford coverage, the new PPACA system might increase their ability to offer health benefits, Sebelius said.