Health Care Reform Rules Give Patients A New Bill Of Rights

December 19, 2012June 12, 2015 admin

Health Care Reform initiatives have yielded a new “Patient Bill of Rights” since November. There will be a great number of changes enacted in 2013 leading up to 2014 when coverage mandates, state insurance exchanges and tax changes take effect for health care. Sound confusing?, It certainly will be. In the meantime, “Know your rights” and check back with us periodically to learn how to navigate health care cost and confusion.

Jeffrey Young – Huff Post Business – 11/20/2012

Health insurance consumers won’t be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions, can’t be charged more because of gender and will be guaranteed a basic set of benefits under historic new federal regulations published Tuesday.

Think of them as the Patients’ Bill of Rights that eluded former President Bill Clinton more than a decade ago. The regulations carry out the promises of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, which will extend health insurance coverage to 30 million people over a decade and outlaw some of the industry’s most notorious practices.

Health insurance companies, state regulators and consumer advocates have eagerly awaited these rules since Obama enacted the health care overhaul in March 2010.

The details contained within the 331 pages of regulations are crucial for health insurance companies and states preparing for the new options that will be available to uninsured people and small businesses starting in 2014. The health insurance exchanges, online marketplaces where consumers can shop for plans and determine whether they qualify for tax credits to pay for private insurance coverage or Medicaid benefits, are slated to be open for business on Oct. 1, 2013.

“Americans in all 50 states will have access to an exchange and the benefits of the new law,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on a conference call with reporters Tuesday. “Beginning in October next year, families and small-business owners everywhere will be able to shop for affordable, quality health coverage.”

The Department of Health and Human Services published three separate regulations Tuesday. Broadly, the rules restate the health insurance market reforms in Obama’s health care law. But health insurance companies and state officials that aren’t actively resisting the implementation of Obamacare need the details to ensure that health insurance exchanges are ready, and health plans available for sale on time.

One lays out the rules requiring health insurance companies to sell coverage to anyone who applies, prohibits charging women more than men, limits how much people must pay additionally based on age, where they live, family size and whether they use tobacco, and guarantees renewal of health coverage every year.

A second set of regulations spells out which benefits all health insurance plans sold on the exchanges must cover — 10 categories of medical care, including emergency services, hospital stays, maternity care, prescription drugs and preventive medicine. In addition, the rule explains how states must designate an insurance product already on the market as a “benchmark plan” to serve as a model for what the new insurance products will cover starting in 2014. This regulation also sets up how health insurance companies must prove their plans will cover at least 60 percent of a consumer’s average annual medical expenses.

The cost of health insurance on the exchanges will be subsidized using tax credits for people with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $44,680 this year. People who make up to 133 percent of poverty, $14,856 in 2012, will qualify for Medicaid in states that opt into an expansion of the health program for the poor.

The Obama administration published a third rule on “wellness” programs that employers include in workers’ health benefits, such as discounts to employees who quit smoking, lose weight or lower their cholesterol. The new regulations are designed, in part, to prevent companies from using the programs to set prices to discriminate against workers who don’t meet the wellness programs’ standards.

Publishing these regulations is just one small step toward 2014, however, and major obstacles remain. As of Monday, just 17 states and the District of Columbia had committed to creating a health insurance exchange themselves as the law sets out, according to a tally by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The federal government will have to step in, and partially or completely establish these exchanges in the rest of the states, including those run by Republican governors like Rick Perry of Texas who have vowed continued opposition to the law.

“Now that the law is here to stay, I’m hopeful that states and other partners will continue to work with us to implement the law,” said Sebelius, who offered to meet with governors who have outstanding questions about states’ role in carrying out the health care reform law. Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), an ardent opponent of Obamacare, last week wrote Sebelius requesting a sit-down.

(more…)

Same Doctor Visit, Double the Cost

September 11, 2012October 5, 2012 J Roberts

Read about an alarming trend concerning physician practices that will most likely result in greater out of pocket costs to you. Consumers beware; you may pay more for your doctor’s visit than you previously thought. This growing movement is occurring nationwide and is becoming more prevalent as hospitals seek to increase their revenue streams in preparation for the upcoming implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers Say Rates Can Surge After Hospitals Buy Private Physician Practices; Medicare Spending Rises, Too

Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2012

After David Hubbard underwent a routine echocardiogram at his cardiologist’s office last year, he was surprised to learn that the heart scan cost his insurer $1,605. That was more than four times the $373 it paid when the 61-year-old optometrist from Reno, Nev., had the same procedure at the same office just six months earlier.

“Nothing had changed, it was the same equipment, the same room,” said Dr. Hubbard, who has a high-deductible health plan and had to pay about $1,000 of the larger bill out of his own pocket. “I was very upset.”

But something had changed: his cardiologist’s practice had been bought by Renown Health, a local hospital system. Dr. Hubbard was caught up in a structural shift that is sweeping through health care in the U.S.—hospitals are increasingly acquiring private physician practices.

Hospitals say the acquisitions will make health care more efficient. But the phenomenon, in some cases, also is having another effect: higher prices.

As physicians are subsumed into hospital systems, they can get paid for services at the systems’ rates, which are typically more generous than what insurers pay independent doctors. What’s more, some services that physicians previously performed at independent facilities, such as imaging scans, may start to be billed as hospital outpatient procedures, sometimes more than doubling the cost.

The result is that the same service, even sometimes provided in the same location, can cost more once a practice signs on with a hospital.

Major health insurers say a growing number of rate increases are tied to physician-practice acquisitions. The elevated prices also affect employers, many of which pay for their workers’ coverage. A federal watchdog agency said doctor tie-ups are likely resulting in higher Medicare spending as well, because the program pays more for some services performed in a hospital facility.

Renown said in a statement that cardiologists moving into hospital employment helps “eliminate duplication, improve coordination, and reduce hospitalizations,” and with “more proactive management of patients with heart disease, we are working to improve the health and well being of our patients.”

This year, nearly one-quarter of all specialty physicians who see patients at hospitals are actually employed by the hospitals, according to an estimate from the Advisory Board Co. That is more than four times as many as the 5% in 2000. The equivalent share of primary-care physicians has doubled to about 40% in the same time frame. Traditionally, most doctors who see patients at hospitals are in independent practice.

The structural shift is being driven partly by declining reimbursements for physicians, particularly in certain specialties like cardiology. Doctors are also being pressed to make new investments, such as introducing electronic medical records, and some are attracted to the idea of more regular hours with fewer administrative headaches.

Hospitals say they are bringing in physicians to improve care, integrate services and reduce waste, efforts encouraged by the Obama administration’s federal health-overhaul law. Higher reimbursement is needed in some cases, they say, because it costs more to operate outpatient clinics, which must meet strict regulatory requirements and often treat patients who lack insurance.

“You put a hospital name on something, and the expectations change immediately,” said Richard Umbdenstock, chief executive of the American Hospital Association. Indeed, hospital systems often struggle to break even on their physicians, industry officials said.

(more…)

NJ lawmakers seeking to control insurance costs

November 9, 2011November 14, 2011 J Roberts

Looking for greater transparency on how insurers calculate and charge for premiums? The state of NJ is intending to provide just that. A recent measure adopted by the state legislature would require all insurers to gain approval by the state’s regulatory agency before they can raise premiums.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

TRENTON — Health insurance carriers who serve individuals and small businesses in New Jersey may soon have to gain state approval before implementing rate increases.

These firms currently can set and increase rates just by filing the information with the state. But a measure planned by three state lawmakers would require that the firms gain approval for such actions from the state Department of Banking and Insurance.

It also would expand the jurisdiction of the state’s Division of Rate Counsel, which now has no say over health insurance rates, to create a watchdog for residents and small businesses.

“Residents deserve a watchdog, someone with the knowledge to advocate on their behalf when it comes to the complicated issue of rising health care premiums,” said Assemblyman Dan Benson, D-Hamilton Township (Mercer County), who said he will sponsor the measure with fellow Democrat Valerie Vainieri Huttle of Englewood.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Barbara Buono plans to sponsor identical legislation, with both measures likely to be introduced by year’s end.

“This legislation will provide far greater transparency,” Benson said.

Ed Rogan, spokesman for the banking and insurance department, declined to comment on the proposal. As a matter of policy, the department does not discuss proposed or pending legislation.

Besides requiring the banking and insurance department commissioner to approve any rate increase, the proposed bill also would give the commissioner authority to reject proposed rate changes deemed discriminatory or excessive.

The commissioner and rate counsel would also have to jointly hold public hearings on any proposed premium increases for insurance contracts or policies in the Individual Health Coverage Program or New Jersey Small Employers Health Benefits Program market.

Information about premium increases, including an explanation of how carriers report and calculate health insurance premiums, also would have to be posted on the department’s website.

Currently, insurers in these plans are required to spend no more than 20 percent of the premiums paid on administrative expenses.

Insurance mandates again hike costs

August 9, 2011August 9, 2011 J Roberts

Recent government mandates in the state of Connecticut raise the cost of insurance for all. While the act aims to offer more comprehensive services, it may, in actuality prove as a disservice by raising the overall cost of insurance to the states residents. Read on to learn more.

By Greg Bordonaro

While tax increases, paid sick leave and union concessions took up most of the attention during the recent legislative session, lawmakers passed a flurry of new health insurance mandates that will raise the cost health insurance for employers.

In all, seven new mandates — some of which business lobbyists have fought for years — passed the legislature and have been signed into law by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

A health insurance “mandate” is something for which an insurance company or health plan must offer coverage, and whose costs typically get passed onto employers.

Health mandates have been a hot political issue in Connecticut for years. The business community has long voiced opposition, citing costs. But supporters say cost concerns are overblown and that the benefits outweigh the price.

The divide illustrates a central issue in the broader health care debate. The question of how to control health care costs, while also mandating adequate coverage that prevents and treats illnesses effectively, has been difficult to answer.

New mandates passed this year:

• Expand coverage requirements for certain patient clinical trials, breast MRIs, colonoscopies and prostate cancer screenings;

• Increase the maximum annual coverage for ostomy-related supplies from $1,000 to $2,500;

• Require coverage for bone marrow testing;

• And place new restrictions on insurance companies that require the initial use of over-the-counter drugs for pain treatment.

“It is a fundamental truth that as you add benefits you increase costs,” said Keith Stover, a lobbyist for the state’s health insurance industry. “The math isn’t that complicated.”

According to a report by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), which is funded by the insurance industry, Connecticut had 59 mandates at the end of 2010, making it the fifth most demanding state.

While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive, requiring insurers to pay for care patients previously funded out of their own pocket. Those expenses often get passed onto employers through higher premiums.

(more…)

HHS Issues Regs on Insurance Rate Increase Disclosure and Review

January 3, 2011 J Roberts

Read about the regulations concerning the new Affordable Care Act. Insurers will now have to justify any large or significant rate increases.

New proposed Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulations announced today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are intended to bring new transparency and scrutiny to proposed health insurance rate increases. These proposed rules allow HHS to work with states to require insurers to publicly disclose and justify unreasonable rate increases.

The ACA has already begun to help states strengthen or create rate review processes, HHS said. On August 16, HHS awarded $46 million to 45 states and the District of Columbia to help them improve their oversight of proposed health insurance rate increases. This is part of $250 million that the healthcare reform law makes available to states to take action against insurers

Today’s proposed regulations will build on these efforts by requiring insurers in all states to publicly justify any unreasonable rate increases beginning in 2011, as described in an HHS fact sheet. In 2011, proposed rate increases of 10 percent or higher will be publicly disclosed and thoroughly reviewed to determine if the rate increase is unreasonable. After 2011, state-specific thresholds would be set using data and trends that better reflect cost trends particular to each state. An insurance company’s justifications for unreasonable increases will be posted on HealthCare.gov and the insurance plan’s website.

Under the proposed regulation, states with effective rate review systems would conduct the reviews. If a state lacks the resources or authority to do thorough actuarial reviews, HHS would conduct them. Meanwhile, HHS will continue to make resources available to states to strengthen their rate review processes.

In 2014, the ACA empowers states to exclude health plans that show a pattern of excessive or unjustified premium increases from the new health insurance exchanges.

Report says health care will cover more, cost more

April 26, 2010 J Roberts

A recent report says that healthcare costs will continue to rise even though landmark reform has been passed. There are some positive points; Medicare premiums are predicted to decrease and of course more Americans will have health insurance. Read the article, review the report and formulate your own opinion.

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance – adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It’s a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law’s potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill – Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings – could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

“During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage,” wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary. “Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare … reductions is doubtful.” Foster’s office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama’s 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation’s health care system.

“A trillion dollars gets spent, and it’s no surprise – health care costs are going to go up,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he’s concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

“The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law,” the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren’t clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president’s law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report’s most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces “a very serious risk” of insolvency.