The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has described the Delta variant of the coronavirus as being as transmissible as chickenpox and cautioned it could cause severe disease, the Washington Post said, citing an internal CDC document. The …
In a legislative flurry, 30 states instituted liability protections in late 2020 and early 2021 designed to protect businesses from COVID-19 lawsuits, out of fear that companies would be sued for exposing workers, clients or vendors to the swiftly spreading, …
Of the 2 million people clogging airport security lines and gate areas again each day, one crowd is still largely missing: business travelers. Their absence is noteworthy because they are a key source of revenue and profit, underpinning a record-breaking …
As a resurgence in Covid-19 cases prompts more U.S. employers to require vaccinations, workers who object face a common response: Get a shot or get another job. In the past six weeks alone, a federal judge in Texas dismissed a …
COVID-19 did not delay medical treatment for workers’ compensation claimants, but did decrease the amount of emergency care and other services provided to injured workers, a study released by the Workers’ Compensation Institute concludes. Research by WCRI economist Olesya Fomenko …
Five weeks after dropping its reference to the coronavirus as a weight on the economy, the U.S. Federal Reserve is confronting a challenging new rise in cases that has fueled doubts about the global recovery and is already forcing other …
Last weekend, the House of Representatives passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (H.R. 1319), an economic stimulus package designed to provide relief from the impact of COVID-19 on Americans. The bill has the support of the majority of Americans – including those registered as Republicans and Independents.
H.R. 1319 is now under consideration in the Senate, so we don’t yet know exactly what will be included in the final legislation. But the health insurance provisions in the House version of the legislation are unchanged from what the House Ways and Means Committee had initially proposed, and have not been sticking points for the bill thus far.
Several provisions in H.R. 1319 are designed to make health coverage more accessible and affordable. Today we’re taking a look at how the legislation would change the ACA’s premium subsidy structure for 2021 and 2022, and the impact that would have on the premiums that Americans pay for individual and family health coverage.
If you’re among the 12 million people who purchase ACA-compliant coverage in the health insurance marketplaces, your coverage is likely to become more affordable under H.R. 1319.
What’s more, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that an additional 1.7 million people – most of whom are currently uninsured – would enroll in health plans through the marketplaces in 2022 as a result of the enhanced premium subsidies.
Some opponents of the legislation have criticized its premium subsidy enhancements as a handout to wealthy Americans. But that’s only because the legislation is designed to remedy the subsidy cliff – which can result in some households paying as much as half of their annual income for health insurance premiums. It’s a situation that’s obviously neither realistic nor sustainable for policyholders.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) only provides premium tax credits (aka premium subsidies) if a household’s ACA-specific modified adjusted gross income doesn’t exceed 400 percent of the federal poverty level. For 2021 coverage in the continental U.S., that’s about $51,000 for a single person and $104,800 for a family of four. Depending on where you live, that might be a comfortable income – but not if you have to spend 20, 30, 40 or even 50 percent of that income on health insurance.
H.R. 1319’s adjustment to the premium tax credit guidelines would temporarily – for this year and next year – eliminate the income cap for premium subsidies. That means that – regardless of income – no one would have to pay more than 8.5 percent of their household income for the benchmark plan (the second-lowest-cost Silver plan available in the exchange in a given area).
Under this approach, subsidies would phase out gradually as income increases. Plan buyers would not be eligible for a subsidy if the benchmark plan’s full price wouldn’t be more than 8.5 percent of the household’s income. But in some areas of the country – and particularly for older applicants, who can be charged as much as three times the premiums young adults pay – premium subsidy eligibility could end up extending well above 400 percent of the poverty level.
In addition to addressing the subsidy cliff, H.R. 1319 also enhances premium subsidies for marketplace buyers who are already subsidy-eligible. The subsidies would get larger across the board, making after-subsidy premiums more affordable for most enrollees. At every income level, the legislation would reduce the percentage of income that people are expected to pay for the benchmark plan, which would result in larger subsidies.
How much larger? It would depend on location, income, and age. Let’s take a look at some examples.
We’ll consider applicants with various income levels and ages in three locations: Albuquerque, New Mexico – where premiums are among the nation’s lowest; Jackson, Mississippi – where premiums are close to the national average; and Cheyenne, Wyoming – where premiums are among the nation’s highest.
In each location, we’ll see how things would play out for a 25-year-old, a 60-year-old, and a family of four (45-year-old parents, and kids who are 13 and 10), all at varying income levels.
You can see the full comparison in this spreadsheet. (Current premiums were obtained via HealthCare.gov’s browsing tool. Premiums under H.R. 1319 were calculated using the proposed applicable percentage table in Section 9661(a) and the methodology outlined here, which would be unchanged under the new legislation.)
In most cases, you’ll notice that the subsidy amount is larger under H.R. 1319, resulting in a lower benchmark premium and also a lower price for the lowest-cost plan available to that applicant (or more plans available with no premium at all). This is because the new legislation specifically reduces the percentage of income that people have to pay for the benchmark plan. That, in turn, drives up the subsidy amounts that are necessary to reduce the benchmark premium. And since premium subsidies can be applied to any metal-level plan, it also results in a lower cost for the other available plans (or more premium-free plans, depending on the circumstances).
As you consider these numbers, note that if the current subsidy amount is $0, either the benchmark plan is already considered affordable for that person, or their income is over 400 percent of the poverty level and subsidies are simply not available. If the subsidy amount is $0 under the H.R. 1319 scenario, it means that the benchmark plan would not cost more than 8.5 percent of the applicant’s income.
As you can see, the additional subsidies would be widely available, but would be more substantial for people who are currently paying the highest premiums. Under the current rules, it may not be realistic for our Wyoming family to pay more than $30,000 in annual premiums (enrolling in the benchmark plan, with premiums in excess of $2,500 per month). The American Rescue Plan Act would bring their annual premiums for the benchmark plan down to under $10,000, which is much more manageable.
The legislation is not, however, a giveaway to wealthy Americans. If that family earned $500,000, they still wouldn’t get a premium subsidy under H.R. 1319, because even at $2,528/month, the full-price cost of the benchmark plan would only amount to 6 percent of their income. Unlike Medicare and the tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance, financial assistance with individual market health insurance would not extend to the wealthiest applicants.
By capping premiums at 8.5 percent of income, H.R. 1319 provides targeted premium assistance only where it’s needed. And by enhancing the existing premium subsidies, the legislation makes it easier for people at all income levels to afford health coverage.
Assuming these premium subsidy enhancements are approved by the Senate, they’ll be retroactive to the start of 2021. Current enrollees will be able to start claiming any applicable extra subsidy immediately, or they can wait and claim it on their 2021 tax return. The additional premium subsidies would also be available for 2022, but would no longer be available as of 2023 unless additional legislation is enacted to extend them.
And there’s currently a special enrollment period – which continues through May 15 in most states – during which people can sign up for coverage if they haven’t already. In most states, this window can also be used by people who already have coverage and wish to change their plan, so this is definitely a good time to reconsider your health insurance coverage and make sure you’re taking advantage of the benefits that are available to you.
Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts.
The post How the American Rescue Plan Act would boost marketplace premium subsidies appeared first on healthinsurance.org.
Edit: The Senate passed H.R.1319 on March 6, and the House passed the bill again on March 10. President Biden signed it into law on March 11. CMS published some initial information for marketplace enrollees on March 12.
Last weekend, the House of Representatives passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (H.R. 1319), an economic stimulus package designed to provide relief from the impact of COVID-19 on Americans. The bill has the support of the majority of Americans – including those registered as Republicans and Independents.
H.R. 1319 is now under consideration in the Senate, so we don’t yet know exactly what will be included in the final legislation. But the health insurance provisions in the House version of the legislation are unchanged from what the House Ways and Means Committee had initially proposed, and have not been sticking points for the bill thus far.
Several provisions in H.R. 1319 are designed to make health coverage more accessible and affordable. Today we’re taking a look at how the legislation would change the ACA’s premium subsidy structure for 2021 and 2022, and the impact that would have on the premiums that Americans pay for individual and family health coverage.
If you’re among the 12 million people who purchase ACA-compliant coverage in the health insurance marketplaces, your coverage is likely to become more affordable under H.R. 1319.
What’s more, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that an additional 1.7 million people – most of whom are currently uninsured – would enroll in health plans through the marketplaces in 2022 as a result of the enhanced premium subsidies.
Some opponents of the legislation have criticized its premium subsidy enhancements as a handout to wealthy Americans. But that’s only because the legislation is designed to remedy the subsidy cliff – which can result in some households paying as much as half of their annual income for health insurance premiums. It’s a situation that’s obviously neither realistic nor sustainable for policyholders.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) only provides premium tax credits (aka premium subsidies) if a household’s ACA-specific modified adjusted gross income doesn’t exceed 400 percent of the federal poverty level. For 2021 coverage in the continental U.S., that’s about $51,000 for a single person and $104,800 for a family of four. Depending on where you live, that might be a comfortable income – but not if you have to spend 20, 30, 40 or even 50 percent of that income on health insurance.
H.R. 1319’s adjustment to the premium tax credit guidelines would temporarily – for this year and next year – eliminate the income cap for premium subsidies. That means that – regardless of income – no one would have to pay more than 8.5 percent of their household income for the benchmark plan (the second-lowest-cost Silver plan available in the exchange in a given area).
Under this approach, subsidies would phase out gradually as income increases. Plan buyers would not be eligible for a subsidy if the benchmark plan’s full price wouldn’t be more than 8.5 percent of the household’s income. But in some areas of the country – and particularly for older applicants, who can be charged as much as three times the premiums young adults pay – premium subsidy eligibility could end up extending well above 400 percent of the poverty level.
In addition to addressing the subsidy cliff, H.R. 1319 also enhances premium subsidies for marketplace buyers who are already subsidy-eligible. The subsidies would get larger across the board, making after-subsidy premiums more affordable for most enrollees. At every income level, the legislation would reduce the percentage of income that people are expected to pay for the benchmark plan, which would result in larger subsidies.
How much larger? It would depend on location, income, and age. Let’s take a look at some examples.
We’ll consider applicants with various income levels and ages in three locations: Albuquerque, New Mexico – where premiums are among the nation’s lowest; Jackson, Mississippi – where premiums are close to the national average; and Cheyenne, Wyoming – where premiums are among the nation’s highest.
In each location, we’ll see how things would play out for a 25-year-old, a 60-year-old, and a family of four (45-year-old parents, and kids who are 13 and 10), all at varying income levels.
You can see the full comparison in this spreadsheet. (Current premiums were obtained via HealthCare.gov’s browsing tool. Premiums under H.R. 1319 were calculated using the proposed applicable percentage table in Section 9661(a) and the methodology outlined here, which would be unchanged under the new legislation.)
In most cases, you’ll notice that the subsidy amount is larger under H.R. 1319, resulting in a lower benchmark premium and also a lower price for the lowest-cost plan available to that applicant (or more plans available with no premium at all). This is because the new legislation specifically reduces the percentage of income that people have to pay for the benchmark plan. That, in turn, drives up the subsidy amounts that are necessary to reduce the benchmark premium. And since premium subsidies can be applied to any metal-level plan, it also results in a lower cost for the other available plans (or more premium-free plans, depending on the circumstances).
As you consider these numbers, note that if the current subsidy amount is $0, either the benchmark plan is already considered affordable for that person, or their income is over 400 percent of the poverty level and subsidies are simply not available. If the subsidy amount is $0 under the H.R. 1319 scenario, it means that the benchmark plan would not cost more than 8.5 percent of the applicant’s income.
As you can see, the additional subsidies would be widely available, but would be more substantial for people who are currently paying the highest premiums. Under the current rules, it may not be realistic for our Wyoming family to pay more than $30,000 in annual premiums (enrolling in the benchmark plan, with premiums in excess of $2,500 per month). The American Rescue Plan Act would bring their annual premiums for the benchmark plan down to under $10,000, which is much more manageable.
The legislation is not, however, a giveaway to wealthy Americans. If that family earned $500,000, they still wouldn’t get a premium subsidy under H.R. 1319, because even at $2,528/month, the full-price cost of the benchmark plan would only amount to 6 percent of their income. Unlike Medicare and the tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance, financial assistance with individual market health insurance would not extend to the wealthiest applicants.
By capping premiums at 8.5 percent of income, H.R. 1319 provides targeted premium assistance only where it’s needed. And by enhancing the existing premium subsidies, the legislation makes it easier for people at all income levels to afford health coverage.
Assuming these premium subsidy enhancements are approved by the Senate, they’ll be retroactive to the start of 2021. Current enrollees will be able to start claiming any applicable extra subsidy immediately, or they can wait and claim it on their 2021 tax return. The additional premium subsidies would also be available for 2022, but would no longer be available as of 2023 unless additional legislation is enacted to extend them.
And there’s currently a special enrollment period – which continues through May 15 in most states – during which people can sign up for coverage if they haven’t already. In most states, this window can also be used by people who already have coverage and wish to change their plan, so this is definitely a good time to reconsider your health insurance coverage and make sure you’re taking advantage of the benefits that are available to you.
Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts.
The post How the American Rescue Plan Act will boost marketplace premium subsidies appeared first on healthinsurance.org.
Before we delve into this week’s news, a reminder that enrollment is now open for 2021 individual/family health insurance in every state except Idaho – but Idaho’s enrollment period will start on Monday. Uninsured people have another opportunity to sign up for coverage, and in most states, people who already have coverage can use this window as an opportunity to switch to a different plan if it would better meet their needs.
The Biden administration and the states that run their own exchanges are also pouring a great deal of money into marketing and outreach during this period, in an effort to reach the millions of uninsured Americans who don’t yet know about the coverage and financial assistance available to them via the marketplace or Medicaid. In most states, the enrollment window continues through May 15, but there are several states with different deadlines.
California S.B. 644, introduced last week, would help to connect unemployed California residents with health coverage resources, starting in July 2022. Under the terms of the legislation, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) would provide Covered California (the state-run exchange) with contact information for people who apply for programs administered by the EDD, including unemployment benefits, state disability, paid family leave, etc. Covered California would then reach out to these individuals, determine whether they’re eligible for Medi-Cal or premium subsidies, and help them get enrolled in coverage if they choose to do so.
In Maryland, a similar bill (H.B. 1002) would allow people seeking unemployment benefits to consent to having their contact information and other relevant information shared with Maryland Health Connection (the state-run exchange) and the Maryland Department of Health. These agencies could then determine whether the resident would be eligible for financial assistance with their health insurance, and help them enroll in coverage. Maryland already has an “easy enrollment” program that connects residents with the health insurance exchange via their tax returns; H.B.1002 would expand the outreach to include people dealing with the loss of a job.
On Monday, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to scrap the oral arguments that are scheduled to be heard next month in a case to determine the legality of Medicaid work requirements. The case focuses on the work requirements in Arkansas and New Hampshire, but it would have ramifications for work requirements that the Trump administration approved in several other states as well.
Work requirements are not currently in effect in any state, and would not be compatible with the current rules that allow states to receive additional COVID-related federal Medicaid funding, on the condition that enrollees’ coverage not be terminated during the pandemic emergency period. But some states, including Arkansas, hope to eventually reimpose a Medicaid work requirement.
The Biden administration notified states earlier this month that the Medicaid work requirements that were approved over the last few years are now being reconsidered. Arkansas, which had the previous administration’s support in the work requirement lawsuit, filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to ignore the Department of Justice’s request and continue with the scheduled oral arguments next month. But Arkansas officials have also said that they will not seek reapproval for the work requirement when the current waiver expires at the end of this year, and are instead considering a work incentive program that would provide private coverage to people who participate in the program, and traditional Medicaid to those who don’t.
Virginia lawmakers have been working on a bill to create a reinsurance program in the state. But as has been the case in some other states that have considered reinsurance programs, there’s disagreement over how to cover the state’s portion of the funding.
The measure passed by Virginia’s House of Delegates earlier this month called for an assessment on individual/family and large group health plans in the state (but not small-group plans), set at 1% of the prior year’s premium revenue. But the Senate has proposed funding the state’s share of the reinsurance program – estimated at $40 to $60 million – from general fund revenues, without the need for an assessment on health insurers.
The two chambers are taking the measure into a conference committee, and have until March 1 to come to an agreement. Assuming they do reach an agreement, the reinsurance program is slated to take effect in 2023 – but it’s possible that the conference committee could work out an arrangement that allows it to take effect in 2022 instead. (Most other states that have established reinsurance programs have had them up and running by the plan year immediately following the enactment of legislation to start the program.)
Yesterday, Kentucky’s House of Representatives voted unanimously to pass H.B. 95, which would require state-regulated health plans to cap cost-sharing for insulin at $30/month, starting in 2022. The measure now heads to Kentucky’s Senate for further consideration. A similar bill – but with a cost-sharing limit of $100/month – passed in Iowa’s House of Representatives earlier this month.
A bill that would cap insulin cost-sharing at $50/month was introduced in California’s Senate last week. And although Illinois was one of the states that enacted legislation last year to cap insulin cost-sharing at $100/month, a new bill was introduced in the Illinois House last week that would lower that cap to $30/month. West Virginia also enacted a $100/month cap last year, but a new bill was introduced this month in West Virginia’s Senate that would lower the cap to $25/month.
In 2019, Colorado became the first state to enact legislation to limit cost-sharing for insulin. Several other states enacted similar legislation last year, and several more had already begun considering bills to limit cost-sharing for insulin earlier this year.
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed a bill last week that will allow the South Dakota Farm Bureau to offer health plans that will not be considered health insurance, and that will be specifically exempt from state and federal insurance laws and regulations. Tennessee, Kansas, Iowa, and Indiana already allow this type of plan to be sold.
South Dakota Farm Bureau noted that its plans to partner with a third-party administrator to offer the new plans. SDFB does intend to cover the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits, but it’s expected that that plan will use medical underwriting as a mechanism to keep costs down.
Oscar Health has filed to become a publicly traded company, with stock sales expected to begin next week. Oscar plans to offer 31 million shares, priced at $32 – $34 per share, potentially raising a billion dollars in the initial public offering. Shares will trade on the NY Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol OSCR.
Oscar offers health plans in 18 states this year. They have more than half a million members, most of whom are enrolled in individual/family plans obtained via the health insurance marketplaces. Although most insurers in the individual market struggled with losses in the early years of ACA implementation, many of them have since become profitable. But Oscar’s losses have continued to mount, despite steady expansion into new states and expansion into the Medicare Advantage market last year.
The Senate Health Committee held a hearing yesterday with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, President Biden’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Another hearing takes place today, with the Senate Committee on Finance. The committees will then make a recommendation to the rest of the Senate, and the nomination will be sent to the full Senate for debate and a confirmation vote. If Becerra is confirmed, he would be the first Latino Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Becerra was previously in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2017. He voted for the Affordable Care Act in 2009/10 and then voted to protect it numerous times over the ensuing years. Becerra became California’s Attorney General in 2017, taking over from Kamala Harris when she was elected to the Senate. He led numerous legal battles against the Trump administration, and some Senate Republicans have expressed opposition to his nomination.
Democrats and the White House have expressed confidence that Becerra will be confirmed. With the 50-50 split in the Senate, Becerra could be confirmed on a party-line vote, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. But moderate West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin has indicated that he’s undecided on Becerra’s nomination. There are, however, moderate Republicans who may support Becerra’s confirmation.
Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts.
The post The Scoop: health insurance news – February 24, 2021 appeared first on healthinsurance.org.
Although open enrollment ended two months ago in most of the country, a new one-time enrollment opportunity is available for 2021 coverage. Uninsured Americans nationwide have access to this enrollment window, and in most states, it can also be used by people who want to pick a different plan or switch from off-exchange to on-exchange coverage.
This enrollment window – a response to the ongoing COVID emergency – is now underway nationwide, with the exception of Idaho, which announced on Monday that a special enrollment period would begin March 1. In almost every state, the enrollment period continues through May 15, although there are seven state-run exchanges that have – for now – different end dates:
If you’re not yet enrolled in health coverage for 2021, or if you’re enrolled in something like a short-term plan, Farm Bureau plan, or health care sharing ministry plan, this enrollment window – which does not require a qualifying event – is an opportunity to secure real health insurance coverage for the rest of the year.
And keep an eye on the COVID relief legislation that Congress is considering. It could end up providing enrollees with much larger and more widely available premium subsidies, making it particularly important that people get enrolled in on-exchange coverage before the end of this enrollment window.
Last week, the Biden administration began notifying states with approved Medicaid work requirements that CMS is considering withdrawing the approval for these programs. The letters were sent to Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin, and clarify that CMS “has preliminarily determined that allowing work and other community engagement requirements to take effect … would not promote the objectives of the Medicaid program.”
There are currently no Medicaid work requirements in effect. Some have been overturned by the courts, some have been postponed voluntarily by the states, and others have been suspended or postponed due to the COVID pandemic and the ban on coverage terminations that states are required to adhere to in order to receive enhanced federal Medicaid funding during the pandemic. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next month in Arkansas v. Gresham, to determine whether the Trump administration’s approval of a Medicaid work requirement in Arkansas was lawful.
CMS also sent a letter (see Michigan’s here) last week to states that currently operate 1115 waivers, rescinding a previous letter that former CMS Administrator Seema Verma sent to states in early January. Verma’s letter had stated that if CMS were to terminate or withdraw approval for part or all of a state’s 1115 waiver, there would be a nine-month delay before the changes took effect.
Last week, we told you about a bill in South Dakota that would allow the state to join Tennessee, Kansas, Iowa, and Indiana in allowing Farm Bureau (or other agricultural organizations domiciled in the state for at least 25 years) to sell medically underwritten health plans that would specifically not be considered health insurance and thus would be exempt from insurance laws and regulations, including state laws as well as the Affordable Care Act’s rules.
The bill had already passed the Senate at that point, and has since passed in the South Dakota House as well. It’s now under consideration by GOP Gov. Kristi Noem, who consistently voted against the Affordable Care Act during her time in Congress.
There are other states where Farm Bureau partners with health insurers to offer ACA-compliant health insurance (Michigan is an example), and the Nebraska Farm Bureau partners with Medica to offer guaranteed-issue short-term health insurance during a limited annual enrollment period. But these approaches are not the same as allowing an agricultural organization to offer products that are specifically not considered health insurance.
Kansas is one of the states where the rules for short-term health plans are more restrictive than the current federal rules. But S.B. 199, introduced last week in the Kansas Senate, would change that. Kansas currently limits short-term health plans to a single renewal, which means their total duration cannot exceed 24 months. S.B. 199 would allow short-term health plans in Kansas to have total durations of up to 36 months – in line with current federal rules. The Biden administration may roll back the Trump-era rules for short-term plans, however, which would eventually make more relaxed state rules moot.
CVS Health/Aetna plans to offer health coverage in at least some health insurance exchanges during the open enrollment period that starts this November, although the insurer has not yet provided details in terms of where it will participate. Aetna had previously offered coverage in some exchanges, but had exited all of them by the end of 2017, and has not participated since. CVS/Aetna opting back into the exchanges would continue the trend that has been ongoing in 2019, 2020, and 2021, with insurers joining or rejoining the exchanges, after numerous insurers – including Aetna – left the exchanges in 2017 and 2018.
Aetna’s previous exit from the health insurance exchanges happened before the company was acquired by CVS. But the exit was controversial, and linked to the Department of Justice’s decision to block a merger between Humana and Aetna. Here’s what David Anderson wrote about this in 2016, and Charles Gaba has put together a timeline of Aetna’s 2016 decision-making process.
Washington state lawmakers are considering S.B. 5313, which would require state-regulated health plans to provide non-discriminatory coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming care. Insurers would not, for example, be able to deny coverage for services needed by transgender members, such as facial feminization, breast reductions, breast implants, etc. by classifying them as cosmetic procedures.
The bill was overwhelmingly approved last week by the Washington Senate’s Committee on Health and Long Term Care.
Legislation was introduced in Rhode Island last week that calls for the creation of a special legislative committee tasked with “a comprehensive study to determine the pros and cons of implementing a single-payer (health coverage) program in Rhode Island.” The legislation notes that an “improved Medicare-for-all type single-payer program” would be in the state’s best interest. There are not currently any states that have single-payer health coverage systems, although there are others that are considering similar studies.
Legislation has been introduced in several states this year that would create Medicaid buy-in programs. With the introduction of H.B. 2241, West Virginia is the latest state where lawmakers are considering this possibility. The idea is to create a public option program by allowing residents – who would not otherwise be eligible for Medicaid – to purchase Medicaid coverage as an alternative to purchasing private health insurance. There are not yet any states where Medicaid buy-in programs have been enacted; Nevada has come the closest, but the Medicaid buy-in legislation that lawmakers passed in 2017 was vetoed by Nevada’s governor.
Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts.
The post The Scoop: health insurance news – February 17, 2021 appeared first on healthinsurance.org.