Politically, it's generally better to underpromise and overdeliver. Unfortunately, when it comes to the actual legislative process it's usually the other way around.
Case in point: Connecticut.
It was just twelve days ago that Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont rolled out his proposed ACA improvement policy package, which included a bunch of key elements including the ballyhooed "Connecticut Option"...a Public Option which would have opened up the existing state employee healthcare plan to anyone on the individual or small group markets.
The full suite was supposed to include nine major provisions:
The Governor will take immediate action by creating a subsidy program to reduce by 20 percent the monthly premiums for Minnesotans who receive their insurance through MNSure. This subsidy will be applied directly against a consumer’s premiums. This proposal provides relief to Minnesotans with incomes over 400 percent of the federal poverty level do not qualify for the federal premium tax credit which helps lower the costs of health insurance premiums. Up to 80,000 people could participate in the program, reducing the out-of-pocket costs of their health insurance premiums.
HELENA — Gov. Steve Bullock has signed legislation meant to lower premiums for Montana customers who receive health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s individual marketplace.
Bullock signed the bill Tuesday creating a reinsurance program to help reimburse insurers for high-cost claims so those costs aren’t included in determining individual marketplace premiums for the following year.
U.S. health officials also must approve the plan, which is estimated to offset 2020 premium increases by 10% to 20%.
Last September I noted that North Dakota was considering going one of two ways when it comes to making a major change in their individual insurance market: EIther joining over a half-dozen other states in pushing for a reinsurance program (which I strongly support doing), or going the other way and starting to offer weaker policies without some ACA protections the way states like Idaho, Tennessee, Iowa and Kansas either already do or are in the process of doing.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that the Colorado legislature was moving on an ACA reinsurance bill which, on the surface would seem to be similar to other reinsurance programs implemented in over a half-dozen other states to cut down on individual market premiums. The Colorado bill, however, had an unusual funding mechanism:
While similar programs have gone into effect in a number of states, Colorado’s funding mechanism for reinsurance would be an innovative approach. This mechanism utilizes Medicare reference-based pricing to bring down health care costs (what is paid to hospitals and doctors). Medicare-reference-based pricing means that the hospitals, doctors and other healthcare providers would be paid a percentage of what Medicare would pay. For example, the program may pay 150 percent (or 1.5 times) of what Medicare would pay for services, which would be less than what is currently paid to healthcare providers. That savings is then passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
A couple of weeks ago, I noted that Colorado is joining over a half-dozen other states in moving forward with their own ACA reinsurance program 1332 waiver request. At the time, I was a bit vague as to just how much the program, if approved, would actually lower unsubsidized premiums, especially since the wording of the bill differentiates between different rating areas:
The Commissioner shall set the payment parameters at amounts to achieve:
Provide a 20 Percent Health Insurance Premium Subsidy
The Governor will take immediate action by creating a subsidy program to reduce by 20 percent the monthly premiums for Minnesotans who receive their insurance through MNSure. This subsidy will be applied directly against a consumer’s premiums. This proposal provides relief to Minnesotans with incomes over 400 percent of the federal poverty level do not qualify for the federal premium tax credit which helps lower the costs of health insurance premiums. Up to 80,000 people could participate in the program, reducing the out-of-pocket costs of their health insurance premiums.
OK, I'm not sure how this one slipped by me...over the past year, a half-dozen states having 1332 Waiver Reinsurance programs approved by CMS (among the few modifications of default ACA provisions approved by the Trump Administration that I agree with).
The states approved have included red ones like Wisconsin and Alaska...but also blue ones like Maryland and New Jersey. For whatever reason, CMS Administrator Seema Verma, while doing all she can to sabotage the ACA in other ways, seems to have a soft spot in her heart for reinsurance, which I'm not going to complain about.
In any event, along with the states which have already had their reinsurance waivers approved, there are several other states where reinsurance proposals have been proposed by either state legislators or governors, including the newly-elected governors of Michigan (Gretchen Whitmer) and Connecticut (Ned Lamont) respectively.
I don't know what the status is of H.R. 5155 (the House Democrats catch-all "ACA 2.0" bill which I've been pushing for awhile now), but it looks like individual elements of it are also in the works as standalone bills:
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - 10:00am
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittees: Health (116th Congress)
The Health Subcommittee with hold a legislative hearing on Wednesday, March 6, at 10 am in the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, “Strengthening Our Health Care System: Legislation to Lower Consumer Costs and Expand Access.” The bills to be the subject of the legislative hearing are as follows.
Last April, Maryland was one of several states which took action to counteract portions of the Trump Administration's attempts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. In particular, Maryland (which has a Democratically-controlled state legislature but a moderate (by today's standards) Republican Governor) passed and signed into two important bills:
The combined effect of these changes was dramatic: Maryland's individual market insurance carriers, which had been planning on jacking up their average premiums by a whopping 30%, instead ended up lowering their 2019 premiums by over 13%. This is a net swing of around $3,200 per enrollee for the year (around $266 per month). In other words, instead of seeing unsubsidized 2019 premiums go up by $2,200 apiece, they dropped around $1,000.
