American Rescue Plan delivers $0 Silver premiums to unemployed

/in , /by

Although the American Rescue Plan (ARP) is about far more than just healthcare, it’s the most significant improvement to healthcare access and affordability since the Affordable Care Act.

We’ve already talked about how the new law – passed by Congress this week and signed by President Biden today – will boost premium subsidies for most marketplace enrollees in 2021 and 2022 and also protect people from having to repay excess premium subsidies from last year.

But another important provision in the legislation will provide substantial premium tax credits (premium subsidies) and cost-sharing reductions to Americans who are receiving unemployment benefits at any time this year.

Full premium subsidies + strongest level of cost-sharing reductions

Section 9663 of the American Rescue Plan ensures that most people who receive at least one week of unemployment compensation at any time in 2021 will be able to obtain a Silver plan with $0 premiums. And Section 2305 ensures that the Silver plan will also include cost-sharing reductions that bring the actuarial value of the plan to 94% (which is superior to the actuarial value of a Platinum plan).

In both cases – for determining the premium tax credit amount and cost-sharing reduction eligibility – the exchange will disregard any income above 133% of the poverty level.

The enhanced premium subsidies in the American Rescue Plan result in $0 benchmark plan premiums for buyers with income up to 150% of the federal poverty level. So people receiving unemployment compensation will end up in that category, since their counted income will be capped at 133% of the poverty level.

And although there are three levels of cost-sharing reductions, the strongest – which result in added benefits that make Silver plans more robust than regular Platinum plans – are available to people who earn no more than 150% of FPL. Since counted income will be capped at 133% of the poverty level for people receiving unemployment compensation, all of the available Silver plans will have the strongest level of cost-sharing reductions built into their benefits.

In order to qualify for the enhanced premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, applicants only need to receive (or be approved to receive) unemployment compensation for at least one week in 2021. The legislation states that eligible enrollees will have to attest to the fact that they’re receiving or have received unemployment compensation this year, and that HHS will issue guidance clarifying what documentation will have to be submitted to the marketplace as proof.

The enhanced premium subsidies and cost-sharing reduction benefits are then potentially available for the remainder of 2021. But this will depend on whether you again become eligible for employer-sponsored health insurance that’s considered affordable and provides minimum value.

If you do, you’ll no longer be eligible for premium subsidies or cost-sharing reductions, since those are never available for months that a person is eligible for affordable employer-sponsored coverage that provides minimum value (regardless of whether the person is enrolled in the employer’s plan or not). That would also extend to family members who are eligible to enroll in the employer-sponsored plan, as the American Rescue Plan does not, unfortunately, address the family glitch.

Provides assistance to people who would otherwise be in the Medicaid coverage gap

Under the ARP, a person who receives unemployment compensation in 2021 is considered an “applicable taxpayer” for purposes of ACA Section 36B, which determines premium subsidy eligibility.

This means that a person who is receiving unemployment compensation but whose income is still low enough to be in the Medicaid coverage gap would be eligible for a $0 premium silver plan in 2021 (The Medicaid coverage gap still exists in 14 states; this will drop to 12 states once Oklahoma and Missouri expand Medicaid eligibility this summer.)

The ARP also encourages those remaining states to expand Medicaid. It provides two years of additional federal Medicaid funding to states that newly expand eligibility as called for in the Affordable Care Act.

Enrollment window is opportunity to take advantage of subsidies

From now through May 15, Americans can take advantage of an enrollment window open nationwide – that’s part of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the ongoing COVID pandemic. So if you’re uninsured and receiving unemployment benefits (or if you’ve received them at any point this year and do not have access to an employer-sponsored plan), you can sign up for health coverage through your state’s marketplace and take advantage of the financial assistance provided by the American Rescue Plan.

In nearly every state, people who are already enrolled in a health plan through the marketplace can also use this window to switch plans.

But what if you’re in a state with a state-run marketplace that is only allowing people who don’t already have marketplace coverage to enroll during the COVID-related enrollment window? You should still be able to switch to a Silver plan (if that’s your choice), as becoming newly eligible for cost-sharing reductions is a qualifying event that will allow you to replace your existing non-Silver plan with a Silver plan that includes cost-sharing reductions.

What if you’re eligible for Medicaid?

It’s important to understand that Medicaid eligibility is not affected by the change in how income is counted for people who are receiving unemployment compensation this year.

ARP Section 9663 temporarily adjusts the rules relating to ACA Section 36B (premium tax credits) and ARP Section 2305 temporarily adjusts the rules relating to ACA Section 1402 (cost-sharing reductions). In both cases, the legislative text that disregards income above 133% of FPL for 2021 is clear in noting that it’s “for purposes of this section,” meaning that the person’s income above 133% of FPL would not be disregarded for other purposes, such as determining Medicaid eligibility, Basic Health Program eligibility (in New York and Minnesota), or whether an offer of employer-sponsored coverage is considered affordable.

If a person is eligible for Medicaid based on their regular ACA-specific modified adjusted gross income, they would continue to be eligible for Medicaid in 2021 even if they’re receiving unemployment compensation. In states that have expanded Medicaid, eligibility for adults under the age of 65 extends to 138% of the poverty level (133% plus a built-in 5% income disregard). This could potentially cause some confusion in terms of the financial assistance for which people are eligible if they’re receiving unemployment compensation in 2021. But the crux of the matter is that the externally imposed temporary income cap of 133% of the poverty level does not apply for the determination of Medicaid eligibility, whereas it does apply for the determination of premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions.

And as was the case in 2020, the additional COVID-related federal unemployment benefits (which have been extended through September 6) are not counted as income when determining eligibility for Medicaid.

So a person in a state that has expanded Medicaid will still be eligible for Medicaid in 2021 with an income of up to 138% of FPL. (That amounts to $17,774 for a single person in 2021.) As always, anyone eligible for Medicaid is not eligible for premium subsidies or cost-sharing reductions; this continues to be true for people receiving unemployment compensation at some point in 2021.

And a person in New York or Minnesota who is eligible for Basic Health Program coverage (the Essential Plan in New York; MinnesotaCare in Minnesota) will continue to be eligible for that coverage (as opposed to $0 premium silver plans in the marketplace) even if they receive unemployment compensation at some point this year. But there are premiums associated with Basic Health Program coverage.

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 American Rescue Plan delivers $0 Silver premiums to unemployed appeared first on healthinsurance.org.

How the COVID relief law will rescue marketplace plan buyers

/in , , , /by

Stressed about having to pay back some or all of the premium subsidy that was paid on your behalf last year? You’re in luck: Under the American Rescue Plan Act (H.R. 1319) – passed by Congress on March 10 and expected to be signed into law by President Biden on March 12 – excess premium subsidies for 2020 do not have to be repaid to the Internal Revenue Service.

This is a one-time provision that’s being granted as part of the federal government’s massive COVID relief measure – which is also significantly increasing premiums subsidies for 2021 and 2022 – and it will come as a great relief to many of the Americans who enrolled in individual and family health plans through the health insurance marketplace /exchange last year.

Although the Affordable Care Act’s premium tax credits (premium subsidies) make health insurance affordable for millions of people, they can be a bit complicated. Unlike other tax credits, they’re available to be used up front, paid directly to your health insurance company throughout the year. (This is called APTC – advance premium tax credit – since it’s paid in advance.)

You can always opt to pay full price for a plan purchased through the exchange and then claim the whole premium tax credit on your tax return, but hardly anyone does that. Instead, most people provide the marketplace with a projection of what they think their income will be for the year, and their estimated premium tax credit is then sent to their insurer throughout the year, reducing the amount they have to pay in premiums.

The catch is that it all has to be reconciled with the IRS when policyholders file their tax returns. Depending on the circumstances, the IRS might give you additional money at that point (if your subsidy was too small), or they might make you repay some or all of the subsidy that was paid on your behalf during the year.

How the law will head off a tax-time subsidy repayment crisis

This issue was shaping up to be particularly significant for the 2020 tax year. The combination of additional federal unemployment compensation and erratic employment made it more difficult than usual for people to accurately project their income for 2020. And, as is always the case, folks whose income ended up over 400% of the federal poverty level were facing the prospect of paying back their entire premium subsidy to the IRS – repayments which could be in the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the circumstances.

An income boost that pushed a household over the 400% federal poverty level threshold might have happened because a person received more unemployment benefits than they expected, or because they got a new job later in the year that put their total income above the subsidy eligibility threshold. In normal years, this would mean the entire subsidy has to be repaid, regardless of how low policyholders’ income was during the months they were receiving a premium subsidy through the marketplace.

And even for people whose income stayed under 400 percent of the poverty level, there was the possibility of having to repay as much as $2,700 in excess premium subsidies, depending on the actual income and tax filing status.

Provision applies only to the 2020 tax year

But thanks to the American Rescue Plan Act, no marketplace plan buyer will have to worry about repaying excess premium subsidies for 2020. If your subsidy amount was too small, you can still claim the additional amount that you’re owed when you file your taxes. But if your subsidy ended up being too large – even if your income ended up exceeding 400% of the poverty level – you won’t owe any of it back to the IRS.

This is a one-time provision for the 2020 tax year only. So it’s still important to project your income for this year as accurately as possible, and keep the exchange updated if your income changes later this year.

How will the provision apply if you’ve already filed your taxes?

It’s not yet clear exactly how the IRS will handle excess premium tax credits for people who filed their 2020 tax returns earlier this year and already repaid some or all of their premium tax credit for 2020. Amended tax returns can always be used to make a change, but the IRS may provide other ways of recouping this money in guidance or FAQs issued in the near future. (We’ll update this if and when the IRS issues guidance and clarification.)

It’s also not yet clear how quickly tax software will reflect the fact that excess premium subsidies for 2020 do not have to be repaid. Karen Pollitz, a Senior Fellow at Kaiser Family Foundation, notes that “the forms and tax software already provide for repayment, so it will take a while to straighten all this out. And it will probably be very confusing for people who file their tax returns over the next four to five weeks.”

You’ll want to check with your tax preparer or call your tax software company to see if they have any guidance for you. The tax filing deadline is April 15, 2021, but it’s also possible to request an extension if you need it, giving you until October 15 to file your return.

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 COVID relief law will rescue marketplace plan buyers appeared first on healthinsurance.org.

How the American Rescue Plan Act will boost marketplace premium subsidies

/in , , , , /by

Key takeaways

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.

Help for 12 million marketplace enrollees, plus more who will newly enroll

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.

No one would pay more than 8.5% of their income for the benchmark plan

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.

Larger subsidies? Here are a few examples.

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.

American Rescue Plan Act impact on health insurance subsidiesYou 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.

Premium enhancements would be retroactive but also temporary

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.

How the American Rescue Plan Act would boost marketplace premium subsidies

/in , , , /by

Key takeaways

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.

Help for 12 million marketplace enrollees, plus more who will newly enroll

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.

No one would pay more than 8.5% of their income for the benchmark plan

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.

Larger subsidies? Here are a few examples.

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.

American Rescue Plan Act impact on health insurance subsidiesYou 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.

Premium enhancements would be retroactive but also temporary

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.

The Scoop: health insurance news – February 24, 2021

/in , , , , , /by

In this edition

Idaho is final state to open COVID-related enrollment window

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.

Bills under consideration in Maryland, California would connect unemployment applicants with health coverage

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.

DOJ asks Supreme Court to cancel hearing in Medicaid work requirement case

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 head to conference committee over reinsurance funding

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.)

Iowa, Kentucky Houses approve bills limiting insulin cost-sharing; other states consider similar bills

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 becomes fifth state to allow non-insurance Farm Bureau health plans

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 to become publicly traded company, with 31 million shares for sale next week

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.

Senate committee hearings focus on HHS Secretary nominee Xavier Becerra

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.

The Scoop: health insurance news – February 17, 2021

/in , , , , , /by

In this edition

COVID-related enrollment window starts in most states

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.

CMS notifies states that Medicaid work requirements are being reconsidered

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.

South Dakota legislature passes bill to allow sale of Farm Bureau plans

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 Senate legislation would allow short-term health plans in Kansas to follow federal rules

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.

Aetna plans to rejoin exchanges for 2022

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 Senate committee approves legislation to ensure coverage of gender-affirming healthcare

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.

Rhode Island legislation would create commission to consider single-payer health program

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.

Medicaid buy-in legislation introduced in West Virginia

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.

The Scoop: health insurance news – February 10, 2021

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

In this edition

COVID-related enrollment window starts Monday in most states

In every state except Connecticut, Idaho, and Vermont, a COVID-related enrollment window will be open by next week. (In a few states, they’re already open.) During these enrollment windows, consumers can sign up for ACA-compliant health coverage without a qualifying event.

In most states, the enrollment window applies to anyone eligible to use the marketplace, including people who are already enrolled and want to make a plan change. But some of the state-run exchanges are limiting eligibility to only people who are currently uninsured, or to people who aren’t already enrolled through the exchange. And some states are extending the COVID-related enrollment window to off-exchange plans as well, although financial assistance is never available outside the exchange.

If you’re uninsured or know someone who is, this is an opportunity to have coverage in place for the rest of 2021, with an effective date as early as March 1. Millions of uninsured Americans are eligible for premium subsidies substantial enough to cover the full cost of at least some plans in the marketplace. And Congress is considering COVID relief measures (described below) that would make coverage even more affordable.

House committees propose health insurance provisions as part of COVID package

The House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a set of nine COVID relief proposals this week. Subtitle G, related to “promoting economic security,” includes several important health insurance provisions:

  • For 2021 and 2022, the normal rules for the percentage of income a person is expected to pay for on-exchange health insurance would be modified to be much more generous. People with income up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level would pay nothing for the benchmark plan. And nobody would pay more than 8.5 percent of their income, including people who earn over 400 percent of the poverty level (and are currently not eligible for a premium tax credit at all, regardless of how much of their income they have to pay for health coverage).
  • For 2020 only, excess premium tax credits would not have to be repaid to the IRS. This is something that several insurance commissioners from around the country suggested to President Biden before he took office. Premium subsidy reconciliation can catch people off guard at the best of times — and 2020 was a particularly complicated year.
  • People receiving unemployment benefits in 2021 would receive a premium tax credit that would fully cover the cost of the benchmark plan.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee also published its proposed COVID relief measures this week, including a provision that would provide additional financial incentives for the states to expand Medicaid eligibility if they haven’t already. There are still a dozen states that haven’t expanded Medicaid.

Under current rules, if and when they expand eligibility, the federal government will cover 90 percent of the cost for the newly eligible population, and will continue to fund the rest of the state’s Medicaid program at the state’s normal matching rate (varies from 50 percent to about 76 percent, depending on the state). But under the committee’s legislative proposal relating to Medicaid, states that newly expand Medicaid would get an additional 5 percent federal funding match for their whole Medicaid program, for the first two years of Medicaid expansion.

The committees will markup these proposals this week, and a floor vote in the House on the final COVID relief legislation is planned for later this month.

Virginia House bill would implement reinsurance program in 2023

Legislation was introduced in Virginia last month to create a reinsurance program in the state. Last week, the Virginia House of Delegates passed the bill by a wide margin, and a Virginia Senate committee unanimously agreed to consider the bill during a special session that starts today.

If it’s passed and signed into law, the legislation calls for the state to submit a 1332 waiver proposal to the federal government by January 2022, and for the reinsurance program to be implemented by January 2023. (This is a fairly long timeline. We’ve seen several states implement reinsurance programs over the last few years, often with the program in place for the plan year immediately following the passage of the legislation that authorized it.)

Montana House passes bill to prohibit abortion coverage for exchange plans

Last week, we told you about a bill in Montana’s House that would prohibit on-exchange health plans in Montana from covering abortion services. On Friday, the bill passed in the House by a wide margin, and mostly along party lines. (Four Democrats voted yes, while one Republican voted no.) It’s now with the Montana Senate’s Judiciary Committee for further review. Montana is currently among the minority of states where abortion coverage can be provided under on-exchange plans and at least some plans do offer this coverage.

South Dakota Senate passes legislation to allow non-insurance Farm Bureau health plans

South Dakota’s Senate passed S.B.87 last week, which would allow a nonprofit agricultural organization, domiciled in the state for at least 25 years, to offer non-insurance health benefits to its members. The legislation, which was proposed by South Dakota Farm Bureau, would specifically exempt such health plans from insurance laws or oversight. Tennessee, Kansas, Iowa, and Indiana already allow Farm Bureau health plans to be sold with similar rules. (The plans are not considered health insurance and are thus not subject to insurance laws or regulations.)

The bill is now with the South Dakota House of Representatives, where the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee approved it 11-1 this week, sending it to a vote on the House floor. The American Cancer Society has expressed strong opposition to the bill, noting that the proposed non-insurance health plans “have the potential of segmenting the insurance market, driving up premiums and making it harder for South Dakotans who live with serious or chronic disease to find health insurance.”

State lawmakers introduce Medicaid buy-in legislation

The concept of Medicaid buy-in as a way of establishing a public option has been debated for several years. Nevada lawmakers passed a Medicaid buy-in bill in 2017, but it was vetoed by the governor. Similar legislation was considered in New Mexico in 2019, but did not pass. (United States of Care has an extensive list of the actions that various states considered in 2019 related to Medicaid buy-in programs.)

This year, lawmakers in several states have introduced various forms of Medicaid buy-in legislation:

  • Georgia: S.B. 83/H.B. 214 would create a Medicaid buy-in program that would be available to anyone not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, Medicare, or PeachCare for Kids (Georgia’s CHIP).
  • Iowa: S.F. 220 would create a buy-in program for the Hawk-i program (Iowa’s CHIP). It would allow families to purchase coverage for their kids (and young adults up to age 26) through the program if their household income is too high to meet the normal eligibility guidelines. (Currently, 302 percent of the federal poverty level.) The plan would be available through Iowa’s marketplace and could be used with premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions for eligible enrollees.
  • Oklahoma: H.B. 1808 would create a Medicaid buy-in program in the state. The bill would alter the existing Oklahoma statute that directs the state to create a Medicaid buy-in program for people with disabilities if funds become available. The funding aspect is key; Oklahoma has not yet created a Medicaid buy-in program for people with disabilities. But another bill was introduced in Oklahoma last week, calling for the removal of the “if funds become available” language in the existing statute.
  • South Carolina: H. 3573 would create a Medicaid buy-in program that would be available to people who are not eligible for premiums tax credits under the ACA, Medicaid, Medicare, or affordable employer-sponsored coverage.
  • Tennessee: S.B. 418/H.B. 602 would create a Medicaid buy-in program that would be available to people who are not eligible for premium tax credits, affordable employer-sponsored coverage, Medicaid, or Medicare. (The wording of the Tennessee legislation is very similar to the South Carolina legislation).

Biden administration puts Trump-era association health plan rule appeal on hold

In 2018, the Trump administration relaxed the rules for association health plans (AHPS), allowing self-insured people to join AHPs, as well as small groups that share only a common geographical location. The rules would also have allowed for the creation of these associations for the sole purpose of offering health insurance, without any other business purpose. These rules were soon challenged in court, and vacated by a judge in 2019. The Trump administration appealed the decision, and oral arguments in the appeal were heard by the D.C. Circuit Court in November 2019.

But a ruling had not yet been handed down by the time the Biden administration took office, and the new administration soon asked the court to stay the appeal. The court granted that request this week, so the appeal is on hold while the new leadership at the Department of Labor reviews the case, with status reports due every two months.

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 10, 2021 appeared first on healthinsurance.org.

The Scoop: health insurance news – February 3, 2021

/in , , , , , /by

In this edition

Special enrollment periods underway (or soon to be underway) in most states

White House

An executive order signed by President Biden has authorized a COVID-related special enrollment period on HealthCare.gov. The SEP will run from February 15 to May 15.

Last week, the Biden administration announced a special enrollment period for HealthCare.gov, which will run from February 15 to May 15. This window will allow anyone eligible to use the marketplace to enroll or make a plan change, without needing a qualifying event.

The SEP applies in the 36 states that use HealthCare.gov, but 12 of the other 15 state-run exchanges have also announced similar enrollment windows — some of which are already underway:

These state-run exchanges are taking a mixed approach to this enrollment window, with some allowing anyone to enroll, and others limiting it to only people who are currently uninsured. There are only three other states that run their own exchange platforms but have not yet announced COVID-related special enrollment periods: Connecticut, Idaho, and Vermont.

House, Senate legislation would make ACA premium subsidies more generous

Democrats in Congress have long been considering various proposals to enhance the ACA’s premium subsidies and make more robust coverage more affordable. Last month, Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) introduced the Health Care Affordability Act (H.R. 369) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced the Health Care Improvement Act of 2021. Both bills include the basic health care provisions that President Biden has proposed as part of his American Recovery Plan.

One of the most important aspects of these pieces of legislation is a fundamental change in the formula for calculating premium subsidies. Under these bills, the subsidies would become more generous, allowing more Americans to purchase coverage with minimal or zero premiums, and capping premiums at no more than 8.5 percent of income, regardless of a household’s income. At ACA Signups, Charles Gaba has created graphics that will help you visualize after-subsidy premiums as a percentage of income under the status quo versus H.R. 369, as well as a previous piece of federal legislation and California’s state-based subsidy system.

Maryland legislation would create young-adult subsidy pilot program

A bill (H.B. 780) introduced last week in Maryland calls for the state to create a pilot program that would provide state-funded premium subsidies to young adults with fairly low incomes. The legislation calls for the state to use $10,000,000 per year in 2022 and 2023 to provide additional premium assistance to people between the ages of 18 and 41, with incomes between 133 percent and 140 percent of the poverty level.

The ACA already provides federal premium subsidies for people at this income level, but the subsidies aren’t as strong for young people as they are for older enrollees. The pilot program would be designed to make net premiums more affordable and boost enrollment for this demographic.

Minnesota legislation calls for transition to HealthCare.gov

Minnesota H.F. 536 – introduced on Monday – calls for the state to transition away from MNsure as of 2022 and start utilizing HealthCare.gov instead. The measure is not likely to pass in the Minnesota House, given the Democratic majority in that chamber and the lawmakers’ general support for MNsure.

In 2017, former Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed a bill that would have transitioned the state to HealthCare.gov, and MNsure has continued to be a successful state-run exchange ever since.

Over the first few years the exchanges were in operation, several states shifted from their own enrollment platforms to HealthCare.gov (although Idaho took the opposite approach, switching from HealthCare.gov to their own platform as of the 2015 plan year). But the opposite trend has been ongoing for the last couple of years, with Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey all switching away from HealthCare.gov and operating their own exchange platforms, and other states planning to follow suit over the next few years. (You can see a full timeline of all the changes here.)

Minnesota bill would require more robust coverage of outpatient mental health treatment

Minnesota H.F. 415 and S.F. 377 – both introduced last week – would require major medical plans regulated by the state of Minnesota (ie, individual and fully-insured group plans, but not self-insured group plans) to cover a member’s first four outpatient mental health visits each year with cost-sharing that doesn’t exceed $25 per visit.

There’s no mention of an exclusion for HSA-qualified high-deductible health plans (HDHP), but that would need to be added to the legislation in order to allow HSA-compliant plans to continue to be available in Minnesota. IRS rules do not allow HDHPs to pay for services like mental health care until the member has met their deductible.

Washington legislation would create state-based premium subsidies

Washington state’s Cascade Care program, including standardized plans and public option plans, is underway this year. But part of the original 2019 Cascade Care legislation called for the state to develop a plan to provide state-based premium subsidies to people earning up to 500 percent of the poverty level.

Legislation to get the ball rolling on that did not advance in last year’s session, but a new bill was introduced last week with a similar intent. S.B. 5377 calls for the state to provide premium subsidies to people with income up to 500 percent of the poverty level (and possibly a cost-sharing assistance program), as long as they’re enrolled in the lowest-cost Bronze, Silver, or Gold standardized plan available in their area. Washington’s exchange conducted a detailed analysis of various approaches to state-based premium subsidy programs last year; their report includes a recommendation that the state-funded premium subsidies be provided as a fixed-dollar amount.

S.B. 5377 also addresses some aspects of the state’s existing public option program, including participation requirements for hospitals and surgical facilities, as well as a reduction in the reimbursement rate for hospitals (currently set at 160 percent of Medicare rates, but it would decline to 135 percent of Medicare rates under S.B. 5377, leading to lower premiums for enrollees).

Mississippi and Kentucky consider extending postpartum Medicaid coverage

Mississippi lawmakers are considering S.B. 2799, which would make a variety of changes to the state’s Medicaid program, including an extension of postpartum Medicaid coverage. Under current rules, a woman in Mississippi who qualifies for Medicaid due to pregnancy is eligible for 60 days of postpartum Medicaid coverage after the baby is born, but S.B. 2799 would extend that to 12 months (during the COVID pandemic, postpartum Medicaid coverage does not terminate after 60 days, due to the current rules that prevent states from terminating Medicaid coverage for any enrollees unless they move out of the state or request a coverage termination). Medicaid covers nearly two-thirds of all births in Mississippi — the highest proportion in the nation.

The Kentucky House Democratic Women’s Caucus has created a plan they’re calling the Kentucky Maternal and Infant Health Project, comprised of 21 proposed bills that would address a wide range of issues. Among them is a measure that would extend postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to 12 months. The proposal also calls for pregnancy to be considered a qualifying event, which is currently only the case in New York, Connecticut, and DC.

Montana legislative committee advances bill to prohibit abortion coverage for on-exchange plans

Last week we told you about legislation in Arizona, Texas, and Virginia that would remove state rules that prohibit abortion coverage on health plans that are sold in the exchange/marketplace in those states. Montana lawmakers are considering the opposite approach, however, with H.B. 229. The bill, which was approved by the House Judiciary Committee last week, would prohibit abortion coverage on plans sold in the Montana exchange. The only exception would be in cases where the mother’s life is in danger.

Montana is currently one of a minority of states where there is no ban on abortion coverage for on-exchange plans, and at least one insurer does offer plans that include abortion coverage.

More states consider bills that would cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin

Last year, several states enacted legislation to cap consumers’ out-of-pocket costs for insulin. Other states are considering similar bills this year, including Montana ($35/month cap), Tennessee ($100/month cap), New Jersey ($50/month cap), and New York ($30/month cap; New York already passed a bill last year that limits out-of-pocket costs for insulin, but the cap is $100. The new legislation would reduce that to $30 instead).

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 3, 2021 appeared first on healthinsurance.org.

Biden administration announces COVID-related special enrollment period

/in , , , , , /by

Today, President Biden signed two highly anticipated executive orders related to healthcare. The first is aimed at strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and directs HHS to consider creating a COVID-related special enrollment period (SEP) on HealthCare.gov. The Biden administration has also committed $50 million to outreach and education, in order to make people aware of the enrollment opportunity and the extensive financial assistance that’s available to help offset the cost of coverage and care.

State officials, insurers, and consumer advocates had repeatedly asked the Trump administration for a COVID-related special enrollment period in 2020, but to no avail. (Almost all of the state-run exchanges did open COVID-related SEPs in 2020.)

When will the HealthCare.gov special enrollment period start?

The special enrollment period runs from February 15 to August 15, giving people six months in which to pick a health plan, even if they don’t otherwise have a qualifying event (edit: this is an extension; the window was initially slated to end May 15, 2021, but was subsequently extended to August 15).

Who can use the COVID special enrollment period on HealthCare.gov?

Anyone who is eligible to use the marketplace can enroll during this special enrollment period. This includes people who are uninsured, under-insured, or already enrolled in a plan through the marketplace and wanting to switch to a different plan.

Previously, it was expected that this new special enrollment window would be aimed at Americans who are uninsured, much like the COVID-related special enrollment periods that had already been announced in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York (the SEP in Massachusetts also applies to people who have COBRA and would prefer to drop it and switch to a plan offered through the marketplace). But when CMS published the details of the SEP, it was clear that they wanted to cast a wide net, making the special enrollment period available for those who are without coverage, but also for current marketplace enrollees.

They’ve clarified that “current enrollees will be able to change to any available plan in their area without restriction to the same level of coverage as their current plan.” They also note that “consumers won’t need to provide any documentation of a qualifying event (e.g., loss of a job or birth of a child), which is typically required for SEP eligibility.”

So regardless of whether you’ve got no coverage at all, are already enrolled in a plan through HealthCare.gov, or have coverage under something like a short-term health plan, Farm Bureau non-insurance plan, fixed indemnity plan, healthcare sharing ministry plan, direct primary care plan, or other similar types of coverage, you’ll be able to use HealthCare.gov to sign up for coverage during this window.

Are state-run marketplaces also offering a special enrollment period for uninsured residents?

HealthCare.gov is used in 36 states, and the COVID SEP applies in all of them. But all of the state-run exchanges have followed suit (in addition to DC, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York, which had already announced COVID-related special enrollment periods). Here’s a summary of the COVID-related special enrollment periods in states that run their own exchanges (note that this list has been updated over time, as more state-run exchanges announce special enrollment periods):

Some of these enrollment windows apply only to uninsured residents, while others apply to anyone eligible to use the marketplace, including people who already have coverage and want to switch to a new plan.

Last month, insurance commissioners from 11 states sent a letter to President Biden, encouraging him to take various actions to improve access to health coverage and care. Opening a special enrollment period was among their recommendations, along with “restoring outreach funding, restoring flexibility on eligibility rules like failure to reconcile, and immediately revoking public charge rules.”

The insurance commissioners who wrote the letter – some whom represent states that run their own exchanges – further noted that

“many of our states run our own state-based marketplaces and we would like to work with you to ensure that any effort to encourage marketplace enrollment is truly national and therefore inclusive of state-based marketplaces, in addition to HealthCare.gov. We ask you, as soon as possible, to coordinate with state-based marketplaces on the timing of any SEP, the messaging you intend to use, and key strategies you will employ to reach the uninsured so that we can align our plans with yours.”

And the CMS press release notes that the administration “strongly encourages states operating their own Marketplace platforms to make a similar enrollment opportunity available to consumers in their states.” As of early February, only three state-run exchanges had not announced COVID-related special enrollment periods (edit: all three had announced COVID-related enrollment periods by mid-February; there are COVID-related enrollment periods nationwide, although the rules and deadlines vary a bit in some states).

How can I get coverage after the COVID-related enrollment period ends?

If you’re uninsured and don’t enroll during the COVID-related enrollment period in your state, your options for getting coverage for the remainder of 2021 will be limited.

But you likely do still have at least some options, as outlined here. If you’re eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, enrollment continues year-round, with coverage that can take effect immediately or even retroactively. Otherwise, you may have to consider a plan that’s not regulated by the Affordable Care Act, such as a short-term plan or health care sharing ministry, to tide you over until you can enroll in a plan through the marketplace.

What else will the executive orders do?

The special enrollment period for uninsured Americans is generating headlines and will be available in just a couple of weeks. But the executive order is expected to direct federal agencies to consider a variety of other reforms, which could have far more significant impact.

Among the most likely are

The second executive order is aimed at protecting women’s health in America and around the world, including ensuring access to all necessary reproductive health care. It rescinded the global gag rule (Mexico City Policy), which blocked U.S. funding for international non-profits that provide women with abortion counseling or referrals. The rule was first implemented in the 80s and has been rescinded and reinstated several times under different administrations.

The women’s health executive order also directs federal agencies to reconsider the Trump administration rule that eliminated federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

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 Biden administration announces COVID-related special enrollment period appeared first on healthinsurance.org.

Biden administration announces three-month special enrollment period

/in , , , , /by

This morning, the White House announced that today, President Biden will sign two highly anticipated executive orders related to healthcare. The first is aimed at strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and will include a provision to create a COVID-related special enrollment period (SEP) on HealthCare.gov, for Americans who don’t currently have health coverage. State officials, insurers, and consumer advocates repeatedly asked the Trump administration for a COVID-related special enrollment period in 2020, but to no avail. (Almost all of the state-run exchanges did open COVID-related SEPs in 2020.)

When will the HealthCare.gov special enrollment period start?

The special enrollment period will run from February 15 to May 15, giving uninsured Americans three months in which to pick a health plan, even if they don’t otherwise have a qualifying event.

Who can use the COVID special enrollment period on HealthCare.gov?

This window is expected to be aimed at Americans who are uninsured, much like the COVID-related special enrollment periods that had already been announced in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York. But the COVID-related SEP in Massachusetts also applies to people who have COBRA and would prefer to drop it and switch to a plan offered through the marketplace – it’s possible that the SEP on HealthCare.gov could be extended to populations like that as well.

Americans are technically considered uninsured if they have coverage under short-term health plans, Farm Bureau non-insurance plans, fixed indemnity plans, healthcare sharing ministry plans, direct primary care plans, and other similar types of coverage, since none of those are considered minimum essential coverage. So people with these types of coverage will be able to use the COVID special enrollment period on HealthCare.gov. And again, it’s also possible that this window could be extended to other groups as well, including those who have COBRA or state continuation coverage after a recent job loss.

Will state-run marketplaces also offer a special enrollment period for uninsured residents?

HealthCare.gov is used in 36 states, and the COVID SEP will apply in all of them. But it’s also likely that many of the state-run exchanges – in addition to Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York – could follow suit. Colorado’s exchange announced today that they’ll open a special enrollment period for uninsured residents, which will run from February 8 through May 15, and Washington’s exchange announced a special enrollment period, with the same dates that HealthCare.gov will use, for “anyone seeking health insurance coverage.”

Last month, insurance commissioners from 11 states sent a letter to President Biden, encouraging him to take various actions to improve access to health coverage and care. Opening a special enrollment period was among their recommendations, along with “restoring outreach funding, restoring flexibility on eligibility rules like failure to reconcile, and immediately revoking public charge rules.”

The insurance commissioners who wrote the letter – six of whom represent states that run their own exchanges (California, Colorado, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington) – further noted that

“many of our states run our own state-based marketplaces and we would like to work with you to ensure that any effort to encourage marketplace enrollment is truly national and therefore inclusive of state-based marketplaces, in addition to HealthCare.gov. We ask you, as soon as possible, to coordinate with state-based marketplaces on the timing of any SEP, the messaging you intend to use, and key strategies you will employ to reach the uninsured so that we can align our plans with yours.”

So it’s quite likely that many of the remaining state-based marketplaces will open COVID-related SEPs this spring, allowing uninsured residents another opportunity to sign up for health coverage.

How can I get coverage between now and February 15?

If you’re uninsured and not in one of the states where open enrollment for 2021 plans is ongoing until the end of January, your options for getting coverage before the new special enrollment period will be limited.

But you likely do still have at least some options, as outlined here. If you’re eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, enrollment continues year-round, with coverage that can take effect immediately or even retroactively. Otherwise, you may have to consider a plan that’s not regulated by the Affordable Care Act, such as a short-term plan or health care sharing ministry, to tide you over until you can enroll in a plan through the marketplace.

What else will the executive orders do?

The special enrollment period for uninsured Americans is generating headlines and will be available in just a couple of weeks. But the executive order is expected to direct federal agencies to consider a variety of other reforms, which could have far more significant impact.

Among the most likely are

The second executive order will be aimed at protecting women’s health in America and around the world, including ensuring access to all necessary reproductive health care. It’s expected to rescind the global gag rule (Mexico City Policy), which blocks U.S. funding for international non-profits that provide women with abortion counseling or referrals. The rule was first implemented in the 80s and has been rescinded and reinstated several times under different administrations.

It’s also expected that the women’s health executive order will direct federal agencies to reconsider the Trump administration rule that eliminated federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

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 Biden administration announces three-month special enrollment period appeared first on healthinsurance.org.

 

Maddox Insurance Agency

Insurance Agency in Memphis, Tennessee

Main Office

2151 Courtland Place | Memphis, TN 38104

Licensed in Tennessee, Mississippi & Arkansas

Contact

Phone: (901) 335-0154
Fax: (901) 255-9141

Lee.Maddox@maddoxinsured.com

Follow Us On