Friday, January 31, 2014

Millions Are Now Realizing They're Too Poor For Obamacare



business





Millions Are Now Realizing They're Too Poor For Obamacare

 
Posted:


Thanks to a Supreme Court ruling and staunch Republican resistance, Marc Alphonse, an unemployed 40-year-old Marine veteran who is essentially homeless, cannot get health insurance under Obamacare.

Three years ago, Alphonse learned he has a kidney disorder that will deteriorate into kidney failure, and possibly prove fatal, if left untreated. As it stands now, he suffers from bouts of nausea caused by his dysfunctional kidneys, and he's dogged by an old knee injury that limits his job prospects. He gets by on $400 a month in unemployment benefits, and his family can no longer afford housing in their home city of Miami. Alphonse's 28-year-old wife, Danielle, and three young children are staying with relatives while Alphonse couch surfs.

"I live from family to family until I'm able to get myself situated," he told The Huffington Post.

Alphonse is one of nearly 5 million uninsured Americans caught in a cruel gap that renders some Americans "too poor for Obamacare."

Broken Promise

Obamacare was supposed to make health coverage affordable, or even free, for low-income Americans. The law's official name is the Affordable Care Act. However, the Supreme Court tossed a huge obstacle in the path of that goal in 2012, ruling that the states could opt out of one of Obamacare's crucial provisions: The expansion of Medicaid coverage to anyone making less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $15,300 a year for a single person. Since the court's ruling, 24 states, including Florida, chose not to expand the program.

Under the pre-Obamacare rules, eligibility for the program typically was limited to low-income children, pregnant women, parents caring for children at home, and adults with disabilities. Without the law's expansion, an adult without a disability who isn't living with their children -- like Alphonse -- doesn't qualify for Medicaid, no matter how poor he or she is.

For those who don't qualify for Medicaid coverage, Obamacare offers tax credits for private health plans sold through the law's health insurance exchange marketplaces. But those subsidies are available only to those making between the poverty level, or about $11,500 for an individual, and four times that amount. In states not expanding Medicaid, people who earn less than poverty wages get nothing.

In Alphonse's case, his family is trying to survive on his unemployment insurance. It amounts to $4,800 a year -- far below the poverty level, which is $27,570 for a family of five. Even the unemployment benefits will run out in March.

'People Break Down In Tears'

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) launched his political career in 2009 as a health care reform antagonist. Originally, he opposed the Medicaid expansion, but he then changed his mind. Last year, Scott and the majority-Republican state Senate backed a plan to accept federal dollars to expand the program. The GOP-led state House of Representatives refused to go along.

Now, 764,000 low-income adults in Florida will remain without insurance because of the coverage gap, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. And they're beginning to understand the tragic consequences of that public battle. At Miami's Borinquen Medical Centers for low-income and uninsured patients, Jason Connor sees hopes crushed as people who thought Obamacare could help them at long last learn otherwise.

"We've had people break down in tears at our desk," said Connor, who is under contract with the community health centers to do Affordable Care Act outreach and enrollment activities through his company, Choice Returns.

Seventy-eight percent of the 50,000 patients that Borinquen Medical Centers treat every year are uninsured, Connor said. About 20 percent of those who visit their facilities looking to apply for benefits fall into the coverage gap, he added.
"Folks are frustrated and they're angry, and they'll curse at you even though you have nothing to do with it," he said.

GOP Revolts

When the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of the Medicaid expansion, Florida, Texas and nearly the entire South turned away billions in federal dollars offered for broadening the program, citing budgetary concerns and resistance to Obamacare itself. The federal government will pay the full cost of the Medicaid expansion through 2016, after which its share will be no less than 90 percent.

These decisions by governors and legislators essentially consigned a huge swath of the very poor to a life of extreme insecurity.

"It's very frustrating," said Alphonse, who last worked as a security guard until being laid off 10 months ago. "It's kind of odd where an individual that has an opportunity to help millions of people in their own state, and they just totally refuse to do it."

Florida's legislature is poised to take up the Medicaid expansion again during this year's session, but the political dynamics don't appear to have changed much since last year. Meanwhile, one-quarter of Florida's population (under the age of 65) is without health insurance -- the second-highest of all the states behind Texas. In Miami-Dade County, where Alphonse lives, the uninsured rate was an astonishing 34 percent in 2011, the most recent year county-level data were available.


Where Are The Uninsured? florida medicaid uninsured This map shows the percent of uninsured in each U.S. county in 2011. The data includes all incomes, races, and both sexes for people under age 65. Source: U.S. Census Bureau



'I Just Try To Live Every Day'

Unable to afford medical care or insurance, Alphonse hasn't followed up on the warning he received about his kidneys from a doctor treating a knee injury he suffered in 2011 while working as a security guard. Alphonse was told he needed to see a kidney specialist and start getting treatments, or he'd risk the condition worsening to the point he'd need dialysis or a transplant.

"It's extremely scary, but I try not to think about it. I just try to live every day because it's what you have to do to survive," Alphonse said.

A few years ago, Alphonse broke his hand and faced a $1,000 emergency room bill that destroyed his credit. He's afraid to rack up medical bills now. Even copayments as low as $20 at community health centers, which charge low-income patients on a sliding scale, are unaffordable, he said. He's applying for health benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but he may not meet the program's eligibility rules.

While hospitals can't turn away patients in need of emergency treatments, they aren't required to provide the kind of comprehensive care needed for someone with a serious medical condition.

"If you're really sick, you can fall through the cracks of the safety net system," said Lise Federman, a health policy specialist at Florida Legal Services in Miami. "People who have chronic conditions who need specialist services do suffer." (Florida Legal Services referred HuffPost to Alphonse.)

Taxpayers Still Foot The Bill

Keeping people like Alphonse off the Medicaid rolls doesn't shield American or Floridian taxpayers from the cost of whatever treatments he eventually may receive, like at a hospital emergency room or a government-funded community health center. Unpaid medical bills totaled $57.4 billion in 2008 -- and taxpayers picked up about three-quarters of the tab, according to a study published in the journal Health Affairs. Expanding health coverage via Obamacare was supposed to reduce that burden, but the patchwork Medicaid expansion limits the law's reach.

And if Alphonse's condition deteriorates into what's known as end-stage renal disease, or permanent kidney failure, he automatically would qualify for Medicare coverage paid for by the federal government. Although Medicare mainly is for people over 65 or those with disabilities, people who need dialysis or a kidney transplant are eligible under a special rule enacted in 1972.

For those too poor for Obamacare in Miami, watching neighbors who make more money receive subsidized health insurance makes the experience even more painful, said Mayte Canino, a field and volunteer coordinator for Planned Parenthood of South Florida and the Treasure Coast. Uninsured people are skeptical of Obamacare and unaware of many provisions, and only 49 percent know that states have the option to expand Medicaid, according to a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation this month.

"That even affects them more, when they see that other people are getting help and they're not," said Canino, who helps people sign up for insurance. "Many of them are very unhappy. They blame the law, some of them, for it. They just walk away from it, and they think that's it. They're defeated."

HuffPost Readers: Did you try to sign up for health insurance coverage, but were told that you're not eligible for Medicaid because your state didn't adopt the program expansion, and you make too little to qualify for help paying for private insurance? We want to hear from you. If you're willing to discuss your health care with a reporter, email us here, and tell us if you're facing any medical issues, what your current coverage situation is, and what Medicaid coverage would have meant for you. Please let us know the following information: your name, your age, your city, and whether we have permission to quote you by name. Please enclose a photo if you're willing to have one published.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Consumers With Canceled Insurance Plans Shifted to New Ones Without Their Permission

ProPublica



Consumers With Canceled Insurance Plans Shifted to New Ones Without Their Permission

.
The Anthem Blue Cross headquarters in Woodland Hills, Calif. Pharmacist Kevin Kingma says the insurer rolled him into a new plan and deducted money from his bank account without his approval, a problem hundreds of consumers say they're having. (David McNew/Getty Images)


When California pharmacist Kevin Kingma received a letter last fall notifying him that his high-deductible health plan was being canceled because of the Affordable Care Act, he logged into his state’s health insurance exchange and chose another plan beginning Jan. 1.

Thanks to a subsidy, Kingma’s monthly premium went down, from about $300 to $175, and his benefits improved.

But this month, Kingma logged into his bank’s website and saw that his old insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, had deducted $587.40 from his account and had enrolled him in another of its insurance products for this year -- he says without permission.

Hundreds of other consumers are caught in the same predicament, insurers acknowledge. And the California Department of Insurance said it is exploring whether any laws were broken when insurance companies withdrew money from consumers’ accounts for plans they didn’t select.

Here’s what happened to Kingma and others: When they received letters last fall, they were informed that their plans had been canceled. But within the letter, it also said that if they did nothing, they would be switched over to a different plan and if they had set up their payment to autodraft from their account, it would continue to do so.

Kingma said he didn’t read the whole letter, just enough of it to know his old plan was being canceled.

Once he noticed the withdrawals from his account this month, Kingma said he tried calling Anthem’s customer service hotline but couldn’t reach anyone because of “high call volume.” Dozens of consumers have reported long phone waits trying to reach Anthem.

Kingma then repeatedly faxed and contacted the insurer through its website. An Anthem representative first told him that he may only receive reimbursement for about half of January, until the date he actually canceled the new policy. Since then, it appears the insurer canceled his policy at the end of 2013. But as of Friday afternoon, it hadn’t refunded Kingma’s money, he said.

“I and a number of other former Anthem policy holders are stuck in Anthem's Kafkaesque nightmare as part of healthcare reform,” Kingma, 57, wrote to me in an email.

Darrel Ng, a spokesman for Anthem Blue Cross, said in an email that insurers across California had moved members from canceled plans to new ones that comply with the law “and that transition retained their payment preference.
“In cases where members neglected to inform insurers that they had selected a new plan or informed insurers too late that they had selected a new plan, members are receiving a full refund for any amount paid.”

Kaiser Permanente spokesman Chris Stenrud confirmed that his insurer has also found cases similar to Kingma’s.

“Unfortunately, about 500 of our existing members in California who had automatic payment set up for their current plans were inadvertently charged before our systems recognized their enrollment in new plans through Covered California,” the state’s exchange, he wrote in an email. “We have identified the affected members and are in the process of contacting them to make them aware of the mistake, and of course, our commitment to refund the extra charge.

“We take this seriously, and want to assure our members that we will make them whole,” he wrote.

These actions may not fully satisfy the California Department of Insurance. Janice Rocco, deputy commissioner for health policy and reform, wrote in an email that insurers have cooperated with her agency and refunded premiums when questions arose, so “we hadn’t been focused on what the potential legal violations might be.”

She said insurers may have violated the law in two ways by deducting funds from customers’ bank accounts electronically. “Moving a policyholder from one product to another would be considered a ‘material change’ that would trigger a requirement in law to provide information about how to cancel the electronic funds transfer agreement. We did not see any notice of how to cancel an electronic transfer of funds in the policy cancellation notices, so there may be some violations of law in this regard.” 

Beyond that, Rocco said, some of the new products used by two health insurers were technically “sold by one of the insurer’s affiliated companies with which that policyholder had no prior electronic funds transfer agreement, so that might be another area of potential legal violations,” she wrote.

It isn’t known whether similar complaints have been lodged outside of California. But insurers in a number of states sent consumers letters saying they would be moved to new plans unless they said otherwise. (This letter was posted online by Politifact.) The Associated Press reported last month that at least 4.7 million people were told their old health plans were going away because they didn’t meet the coverage standards of the Affordable Care Act.

In the meantime, consumers have taken to Twitter to voice their frustration.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Hackers: HealthCare.gov still riddled with potential security issues

Nbc News Technology



Hackers: HealthCare.gov still riddled with potential security issues




17 minutes ago 


Cybersecurity researchers slammed HealthCare.gov's security during a House hearing on Thursday morning, saying the site is still riddled with problems that could put consumers' sensitive health details at risk.

“The reason we’re concluding that this is so shockingly bad is that the issues across the site are so varied,” David Kennedy, founder of the information security firm TrustedSec, told NBCNews.com. “You don’t even have to hack into the system to see big issues – which means there are [major problems] underneath.”

Kennedy was the first of a group of so-called "white-hat hackers" who testified before the House Science Committee on Thursday. He previously appeared before the committee on November 19, when he said he was able to identify 18 major issues with the site – without even hacking into it.

“Nothing’s really changed since our November 19 testimony,” Kennedy said during the hearing. “In fact, it’s worse.”

Only half of one of those 18 issues on HealthCare.gov has been fixed since that November meeting, Kennedy said, and he has since learned of more problems with the site. A separate House Oversight committee hearing began Thursday morning with testimony expected from the Department of Health and Human Service's chief information security officer.

TrustedSec isn’t disclosing the specifics of how those vulnerabilities work, as they are active issues that hackers could exploit. But Kennedy did cite issues including the disclosure of user profiles and the “ability to access anyone’s eligibility report on the website without the need for any authentication or authorization.”

“Some issues still include critical or high-risk findings to personal information or risk of loss of confidentiality or integrity of the infrastructure itself,” Kennedy said in his written testimony. He also submitted statements from seven other security researchers who expressed serious concerns.


(FILES)This December 2, 2013 file photo shows a woman reading the HealthCare.gov insurance marketplace internet site in Washington, DC.  President Bar...
KAREN BLEIER / AFP - Getty Images file
Since the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare", was passed in 2010, the legislation has survived multiple repeal attempts by Republican lawmakers, a US Supreme Court hearing, and a disastrous rollout of the website set up to assist the launch of the legislation. 
The committee, which is chaired by Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), also heard testimony from Michael Gregg, the CEO of security consulting firm Superior Solutions.

Gregg discussed concerns about Healthcare.gov “going up fast,” comparing the process with those of private companies like Microsoft, which roll out products in waves and spend a lot of time testing them. Healthcare.gov didn’t follow that type of process, he said, and the data it contains is a goldmine.

“Hacking today is big business,” Gregg told the committee. “It’s no longer the lone hacker in the basement.”

It’s possible to fix the problems, Gregg said, but he stressed the need for “an independent assessment of the site.”

Another security researcher, who was not a part of the committee hearing, was not as optimistic.

“If you build a house on a bad foundation and it’s sinking into a swamp, it’s really hard to pick up the house and rebuild the foundation,” said Alex McGeorge, a senior security researcher at Immunity Inc. Companies hire Immunity to hack into their own systems and show vulnerabilities.

“Security isn’t a bolt-on,” McGeorge said. “It’s not easy to retrofit once you have a system up and running.”

McGeorge agreed with Gregg’s assessment of Healthcare.gov as “hugely enticing to hackers,” however.

“They’re hawking [Healthcare.gov] as an insurance hub, the place where you can find everything – and that’s exactly why it’s so attractive to hackers,” McGeorge said. “You get into the site, and the fun doesn’t stop there.”

This week the Obama Administration booted the original IT contractor, CGI Federal , that managed Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal’s contract will not be renewed in February, and Accenture won the contract instead.

“From a security standpoint, one of the things that’s so interesting about this site is that it’s so dynamic -- and it’s changing quickly,” McGeorge said. “You’ve got so many hands in the pot.”

Unfortunately, “that is the exact opposite of how you create a secure site,” McGeorge said. When new developers come in to save the day, working quickly to fix issues.

There’s also an upside to the ever-changing nature of Healthcare.gov and its stewards: When the site is constantly shifting, it’s tougher for hackers to exploit vulnerabilities they found previously.

“It’s harder to hit a moving target,” McGeorge said. “But a moving target also makes more mistakes.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Closing the Donut Hole – 25% to All... or Not

HVS Financial





Closing the Donut Hole – 25% to All



There has been a lot of talk about the closing of the “Donut Hole” in the last year and this mainly due to the new “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)” which passed in 2010. This one act has effectively closed the drug gap by the year 2020..

This is great news as one of the biggest issues with Medicare Part D is this Donut Hole and on the surface it appears to be solved. But with an action there is always a reaction and let’s look at how all of this plays out.

(For an even bigger issue see our article – “Medicare’s Tier 4“)

What the “Donut Hole” is as defined by www.medicare.gove is “a temporary limit on what the drug plan will cover for drugs. Not everyone will enter the coverage gap. The coverage gap begins after you and your drug plan have spent a certain amount for covered drugs”.

The amount in 2012 that needs to be spent on drugs is $2,930, it includes everything that is spent by the beneficiary and the insurer. Once at this amount the beneficiary is defined as being in the “Donut Hole” and is now responsible for 100% of all drug costs.

There is some relief though, for those that reach the “Donut Hole” they will receive a 50% manufacturer-paid discount on covered brand-name drugs along with a 7% discount on all generic drugs too. They will also receive a $250 rebate just reaching this gap.

While in this gap the beneficiary is own their own until a total of  $4700 is spent. After this amount is spent catastrophic coverage then kicks in and the beneficiary will have a 5% co pay while the insurer picks up the rest of the tab for the remaining part of the year.

Again, this is great news, over the next few years the Donut Hole will go away and beneficiaries will no longer have to worry about this gap in coverage. The new legislation on the books calls for a bigger discounts on drugs for those in this gap until there is no cost to the beneficiary.
Ultimately, the 3.4 million people who reach the Donut Hole each year will no longer have to worry about that large cost by 2020 but here comes some bad news – the other 27.5 million that have some form of Medicare Prescription Drug insurance who never reach the “Donut Hole”,  they will now be stuck paying 25% on all drugs.

Yes, by 2020 the Donut Hole will be closed and it will be replaced with a 25% costs sharing across the board for all brand name & generic drugs – for those that never reached the “Donut Hole” they will now see their overall drug bill increase starting in 2020.

About Dan McGrath

Dan McGrath, is the Director of Healthcare Funding Strategies at HVS Financial. HVS Financial, one of the only firms in the country that has developed unique yet practical software that assists investors and financial professionals in projecting what expected health care costs will be in retirement.

Contact information;
978-539-8134
dmcgrath@hvsfinancial.com

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Why Health Insurance is Not the Same Thing as Health Care





Why Health Insurance is Not the Same Thing as Health Care





For most people in the health policy community, the word “coverage” carries a certain emotional power. People without health insurance coverage, we believe, are one bad break away from disability and destitution. Hence, many politicians, researchers, and activists believe that expanding coverage is more important than any other policy goal. But not all health insurance is created equal. Indeed, there are tens of millions of Americans who believe they have “health insurance” who can’t get actual health care when they truly need it. If Obamacare remains the law of the land, this problem will get worse, not better.

(DISCLOSURE: I am an outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues. The opinions contained herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily correspond to those of the campaign.)

Earlier this month, in an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, Mitt Romney pointed out that, in America, anyone who has a heart attack has access to hospital care. “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’” he said. “No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government, or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”

Paul Krugman: Mitt Romney is ‘blind’

Paul Krugman, upon reading these factually accurate remarks, went ape-dung. “These are remarkable statements,” wrote Krugman on Sunday in the New York Times. “Going to the emergency room when you’re very sick is no substitute for regular care, especially if you have chronic health problems. When such problems are left untreated—as they often are among uninsured Americans—a trip to the emergency room can all too easily come too late to save a life. So the reality, to which Mr. Romney is somehow blind, is that many people in America really do die every year because they don’t have health insurance.”
I don’t know if I’ve ever read a Krugman column in which Krugman didn’t paint those who disagree with him as morons or liars. But Krugman has a point—one that Mitt Romney agrees with, by the way—that emergency care is no substitute for regular care. Krugman, though, takes this kernel of truth and attempts to make a gallon of Obamacare popcorn out of it.

Krugman’s logic, and that of many Obamacare supporters, goes like this: (1) It’s not enough to offer all Americans free emergency room care, because access to early diagnosis and treatment is important to good health; (2) The uninsured don’t have access to such care, whereas the insured do; (3) Obamacare, by reducing the number of people without insurance by 30 million, gives 30 million more Americans access to such care; and (4) Mitt Romney, by pledging to repeal Obamacare, seeks to deny such health care to tens of millions of Americans.

Not all health insurance helps people live longer

There is, however, a key flaw in Krugman’s logic. It is this. Just because you have a piece of paper that says you have “health insurance” doesn’t mean that you can see a doctor when you need to.

There are three major forms of health insurance in America: Medicare, our government-sponsored program for the elderly; Medicaid, our government-sponsored program for the poor; and private insurance for most everyone else. As I have described extensively on this blog, it’s much harder to get a doctor’s appointment if you’re on Medicaid than if you have private insurance, because Medicaid pays doctors so little that doctors can’t afford to see Medicaid patients. This, in turn, leads patients on Medicaid that are at best no different than being uninsured, and in many cases even worse.

Krugman contemptuously dismisses such talk. “Conservatives love to cite the handful of studies that fail to find clear evidence that insurance saves lives,” he writes. (Here’s the most rigorous of them.) “The overwhelming evidence, however, is that insurance is indeed a lifesaver, and lack of insurance a killer. For example, states that expand their Medicaid coverage, and hence provide health insurance to more people, consistently show a significant drop in mortality compared with neighboring states that don’t expand coverage.”

In fact, Krugman is wrong. The overwhelming evidence goes in the other direction. That evidence shows that people with private, commercial health insurance have substantially better outcomes than those without insurance; but that Medicaid makes little to no difference.
Understanding this data really matters, because of the 30 million people that Obamacare expands coverage to, about half get that coverage through a cavalier and reckless expansion of Medicaid.

Medicaid has little impact on preventive care

Let’s review the evidence. In a paper I wrote in March for the Manhattan Institute, I went through research studying nearly a million patients, showing that patients on Medicaid had worse outcomes than those with no insurance at all.

The study Krugman cites in his column, regarding supposedly improved mortality in three states that expanded Medicaid, was statistically flawed. Only one state—New York—showed a significant improvement against its (biased) comparator. In another state, Maine, mortality under the Medicaid expansion got worse.

Another study that Obamacare’s supporters like to cite comes from Oregon. But the Oregon study, so far, has only described patients’ subjective view of their own health, rather than looking at objective clinical outcomes such as death and longevity.

Let’s look at the specific question Paul Krugman raised. Are patients on Medicaid diagnosed and treated earlier than they would have been if they were uninsured? There is no evidence of that to date.

Indeed, the evidence goes in the opposite direction. To take one of many examples, a group of researchers at the American Cancer Society looked at 533,715 women with breast cancer, and asked: When those women were first diagnosed with breast cancer, were they diagnosed with early-stage or late-stage disease? And how did that correlate to their insurance status?


That correlation matters, because if you already have late-stage cancer when the doctors first discover it, it’s much harder for you to receive curative treatment. Quite literally, the difference between being diagnosed with Stage I and Stage IV breast cancer is the difference between life and death.

Sadly, what the ACS researchers found was quite typical for the literature. Women without insurance were 2.4 times as likely to have late-stage breast cancer upon diagnosis than women with private insurance. But those on Medicaid performed even worse on this metric than did the uninsured; Medicaid patients were 2.5 times as likely to obtain a late-stage diagnosis as those on private insurance. And the authors adjusted their results for race, age, income, education, and geography, among other factors.

The study, like all studies, has its quirks and limitations. But it’s typical of the mountains of published data describing Medicaid’s poor access and poor outcomes. “Our results are in agreement with and extend those from previous, smaller studies,” write the authors in their paper. “The uninsured and Medicaid populations…are less likely to receive timely follow-up and are more likely to experience greater delays in diagnosis and treatment.”

Obama adviser: Medicaid has little impact on survival

Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post, reacting to the same Romney interview as Paul Krugman, wrote a piece entitled “Yes, insurance status does matter for your health.” She spoke to Obama adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, of the University of Pennsylvania, who confirmed to her that health insurance does matter. “In almost every way we’ve looked at it,” said Emanuel, “if you’re uninsured you get worse or more delayed care. In the case of cancer, this is something that can be a matter of life and death.”

To illustrate his point, he sent Sarah a chart, comparing cancer survival times for patients with private insurance, Medicaid, and no insurance at all:


But Sarah neglected to comment about the most notable aspect of this chart. While patients with private insurance lived significantly longer than those with no insurance, patients with Medicaid didn’t. If Medicaid were a drug, the FDA would reject it without a second thought.

Expanding coverage has to be done the right way

This, then, is the fundamental problem with Obamacare. It expands coverage, in large part, by pouring trillions of dollars into the Medicaid program, without making any meaningful improvements to the way that program is structured. And Scott Gottlieb and Tom Miller, of the American Enterprise Institute, fear that Obamacare’s private insurance exchanges will also suffer from poor quality and poor access, just like Medicaid.

The proper goal, then, is not merely to expand coverage out of some obsession with an arbitrary statistic, but rather to do what we can to make it easier for Americans to buy high-quality, private insurance.
The way to do that is to make private insurance cheaper, by liberating the government restrictions that make it difficult for individuals to purchase insurance for themselves, instead of from their employers.

Depending upon how Romney’s plan were to be structured, it could offer universal coverage to all Americans, or achieve more modest expansions of coverage in exchange for reducing the deficit. Either way, the Romney plan focuses on giving more Americans access to high-quality private insurance.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mitt Romney’s plan expanded insurance coverage to 10 million people, in comparison to Obamacare’s 30 million, by making health insurance cheaper. According to the people like Paul Krugman who insist that all coverage is the same, Obamacare is the better option.

But the 10 million people who might get private insurance under a Romney administration would enjoy the same access to high-quality care that employers provide to their employees. That private insurance would have a real impact on the quality of their health and the length of their lives. Under Obamacare, few will be able to say the same thing.

Follow Avik on Twitter at @aviksaroy.

Friday, January 3, 2014

Obamacare Resists Life Change and Insurance Updates



politics

It's Really Hard To Add A Baby To Obamacare

AP  |  By By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR Posted:
WASHINGTON (AP) — There's another quirk in the Obama administration's new health insurance system: It lacks a way for consumers to quickly and easily update their coverage for the birth of a baby and other common life changes.

With regular private insurance, parents just notify the health plan. Insurers will still cover new babies, the administration says, but parents will also have to contact the government at some point later on.

Right now the HealthCare.gov website can't handle such updates.

It's a reminder that the new coverage for many uninsured Americans comes with a third party in the mix: the feds. And the system's wiring for some vital federal functions isn't yet fully connected.

It's not just having a new baby that could create bureaucratic hassles, but other life changes affecting a consumer's taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The list includes marriage and divorce, a death in the family, a new job or a change in income, even moving to a different community.
Such changes affect financial assistance available under the law, so the government has to be brought into the loop.

At least 2 million people have signed up for private health policies through new government markets under President Barack Obama's overhaul. Coverage started Wednesday, and so far things appear to be running fairly smoothly, although it may take time for problems to bubble up. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls it "a new day in health care" for millions of Americans.

Insurers say computerized "change in circumstance" updates to deal with family and life developments were supposed to have been part of the federal system from the start.

But that feature got postponed as the government scrambled to fix technical problems that overwhelmed the health care website during its first couple of months.

"It's just another example of 'We'll fix that later,'" said Bob Laszewski, an industry consultant who said he's gotten complaints from several insurer clients. "This needed to be done well before January. It's sort of a fly-by-night approach."

"We are currently working with insurers to find ways to make changing coverage easier while we develop an automated way for consumers to update their coverage directly," responded an administration spokesman, Aaron Albright.

A Dec. 31 circular from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services addressed the problem.

In questions and answers for insurers, the government said that the federal insurance marketplace will not be able to add a child until the system's automated features become "available later." It does not provide any clue as to when that might take place.

The federal marketplace serves 36 states through HealthCare.gov and call centers. The Medicare agency, which runs the government's other major health programs, is also responsible for expanded coverage under Obama's law.

The question-and-answer circular says parents with a new baby will be told to contact their insurer directly "to include the child immediately" on their existing policy.

After the federal system is ready to process changes, parents will have to contact the government to formally bring their records up to date. Albright said parents will be able to add a new child to their policy for 30 days.

Having a baby could increase a family's monthly premiums, but it could also mean that the parents are eligible for a bigger tax credit to help with the cost. Under some circumstances, it could make the child or the family eligible for Medicaid, a safety-net program that is virtually free of cost to low-income beneficiaries.

"Add it to the list that shows HealthCare.gov is not done," Laszewski said.