American Greatness
By Ned Ryun| April 28th, 2018
About the Author: Ned Ryun Ned Ryun is a former presidential writer for George W. Bush and the founder and CEO of American Majority. You can find him on Twitter @nedryun.
Between December 31, 2008 and April 2018, the S&P 500 saw 177 percent growth. By any measure, a strong performance for that nearly 10 year stretch.
But the S&P 500’s performance pales in comparison to that of Aetna Insurance. The health insurance giant saw its stock value go up by 445 percent in that same time frame. However, Aetna was outshone by Humana, which saw its stock go up 608 percent. Not to be outdone, United Health saw its stock grow by 655 percent. But the real winner in that time frame was Cigna, whose stock value grew by a whopping 866 percent.
To put a fine point on it, insurance companies outperformed the S&P 500 by anywhere from 2.5 times up to five times over nearly a decade.
What a coincidence. Or not, actually.
Insurance companies have been making record profits, as have health providers in the United States, specifically non-profit hospitals (which a majority of our hospitals are) over the last 10 years; the largest 84 hospital systems in the United States generated $535 billion in revenue in 2017 alone. One might actually be forgiven for thinking that ObamaCare has caused massive windfalls for insurance companies and healthcare providers.
Because, in fact, it did.
Americans need to understand that healthcare providers and health insurance companies really have the same goal: to increase prices. Which is perfectly fine if we were discussing a true free market approach to healthcare, which we’re not.
While we’ve heard the term “collusion” bandied about incorrectly for over a year regarding the fairytale of Trump/Russia collusion in the 2016 election, the term actually applies to businesses. The term is defined as “a secret arrangement between two parties whose interest seemingly conflict to commit fraud upon another party.”
We need to realize that health care providers and insurance companies have created a mutually beneficial racket. While on the surface it would appear they’re competing, by the numbers, they’re actually not and have created a very beneficial system for themselves while sticking it to the American people.
They are, in the truest sense of the word, colluding against the American people.
All of this has created a real problem for Republicans. They’ve done nothing while the insurance companies and providers have colluded against the American people to increase costs. They failed miserably to repeal ObamaCare last year, and as the clock keeps ticking on this time bomb of the American people’s anger at rising costs, Democrats are going to offer up their solution: socialized medicine. Single payer has always been a Progressive dream, and thanks to the dithering GOP leadership in Congress, the stage is being set for that very thing to happen.
Yet not all is lost. In fact, in one swift move, President Trump could completely flip the tables on Democrats, insurance companies, and nonprofit hospital systems while also rescuing Republican leadership from their idiocy. How? By going around Congress and using the power of the executive branch.
Trump should inform Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin that the tax regulation regarding nonprofits offering services, should it be hospitals or even higher education, should be compelled to post prices once $20 million in revenue for services is reached.
It should be clear that this reform would only deal with nonprofits that offer services. Entities like the United Way or the Salvation Army would be excluded. And even the nonprofits that offer services would be allowed to keep their non-profit status if they post prices after a certain amount of revenue.
Trump can do this do this because it’s not tax code; it’s a regulation. Congress is not needed. All that needs to be done is to change the wording in regulation 1.501(c)(3)-1(A)(2)(I), (II) & (III) under IRC 501(c)(3) to say this:
An exempt purpose shall not include revenue from services exceeding $20,000,000, unless pricing for those services are readily available to the general public in the same manner as which they appear on an invoice for those services. Pricing shall include the list price, the average discount or grant, median price paid and average price paid. Readily available is defined as availability on public facing websites or on demand phone access.
That simple paragraph would revolutionize healthcare as we know it. It would turn the industry upside down.
By forcing pricing transparency, it would open up the industry to true free market forces: imagine hospitals forced into competitive pricing for procedures. Imagine insurance companies, because the costs are being driven down by competitive forces, not being able to gouge the American people with higher premiums and deductibles.
It’s not that hard to imagine. All Donald Trump has to do is decide he’s done seeing the American people abused by the health industry, he’s done watching GOP leadership dither away their majorities and then strike a bold and decisive move on behalf of everyday Americans.
Thank You Mr Ryan and American Greatness.
Showing posts with label ObamaCare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ObamaCare. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2018
Report: Obamacare Made Insurance Companies Stock Prices Soar '272' Percent
dailycaller
Robert Donachie Capitol Hill and Health Care Reporter
12:01 PM 03/21/2018
Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion program and subsidies have made major health insurance companies extremely profitable, according to a White House economic report released Wednesday morning.
The White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) report that insurers’ financial health, a measure the group says is reflected in their stock prices, improved markedly after Obamacare took full effect Jan. 1, 2014. The economists find insurers’ stock prices soared 272 percent from January 2014 to 2018, outperforming the S&P 500 by 106 percent over the period.
Insurers took time to adjust to Obamacare rules and regulations. While the legislation passed in 2010, it faced a number of legal and congressional challenges that delayed its full implementation for four years. During that timeframe, insurance providers found it troubling to peg a price point for coverage plans after Obamacare expanded essential health benefits (ESBs) and required providers to follow other stabilization regulations, like Obamacare’s risk corridor program.
Some providers were not able to withstand the new regulations and withdrew from the market. Others weathered the changes, gobbled up smaller health insurers and consolidated to stay competitive. Consolidation wasn’t relegated to insurance providers. Hospital systems, pharmacy benefit managers and physician groups had to consolidate to survive the new Obamacare marketplace.
Insurers that stayed and participated in the exchanges have now found it a profitable enterprise, the report states.
“After narrowing in the initial years of ACA implementation, the gap between individual market premiums and claims payments was much higher in 2017 than pre-ACA,” the White House economists report. “As of 2017, most Blue Cross Blue Shield regional insurers, the main insurers left in the ACA-compliant individual and small group markets, have better profit margins than during the initial years of offering plans in marketplaces and have returned to pre-ACA profitability.”
Wednesday’s findings come in stark contrast to what major insurance providers on the state Obamacare exchanges have said for years. Every year since Obamacare’s full implementation–most recently during the numerous 2017 GOP repeal and replace attempts–major insurance companies, like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna and UnitedHealth, have threatened to drop out, or dropped out, of state exchanges because they fear it will no longer be possible to make a profit.
When they dropped out or threatened to do so, insurance companies main concern was whether or not the federal government would continue to pay out Obamacare subsidies, known as cost-sharing reductions (CSRs).
CSRs remained a critical point of debate for House and Senate lawmakers heading into Wednesday’s expected unveiling of a must-pass spending bill to keep the government funded through Sept. 30. The subsidies are not expected to be in the final version of the spending bill, but Democrats, along with a handful of GOP lawmakers, consider them vital stabilizing the Obamacare marketplace.
The White House report may not help their case in securing CSR funding.
“Insurers remaining in the individual and small group markets seem to have recently accounted for ACA regulations and an older, more costly risk pool than they expected by charging higher premiums that have largely been covered by federal government premium subsidies,” the economists wrote. “Large insurers, many of whom left the individual market, are profiting from the Medicaid expansion, which is largely provided through private managed care and paid for by the federal government.”
The White House says it expects insurance company profits to continue to grow following the GOP tax law.
Insurance companies will submit their 2019 filings for the Obamacare marketplaces in the next few weeks.
Follow Robert Donachie on Twitter and Facebook
Thank You Mr Donachie and the DC.
Robert Donachie Capitol Hill and Health Care Reporter
12:01 PM 03/21/2018
Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion program and subsidies have made major health insurance companies extremely profitable, according to a White House economic report released Wednesday morning.
The White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) report that insurers’ financial health, a measure the group says is reflected in their stock prices, improved markedly after Obamacare took full effect Jan. 1, 2014. The economists find insurers’ stock prices soared 272 percent from January 2014 to 2018, outperforming the S&P 500 by 106 percent over the period.
Insurers took time to adjust to Obamacare rules and regulations. While the legislation passed in 2010, it faced a number of legal and congressional challenges that delayed its full implementation for four years. During that timeframe, insurance providers found it troubling to peg a price point for coverage plans after Obamacare expanded essential health benefits (ESBs) and required providers to follow other stabilization regulations, like Obamacare’s risk corridor program.
Some providers were not able to withstand the new regulations and withdrew from the market. Others weathered the changes, gobbled up smaller health insurers and consolidated to stay competitive. Consolidation wasn’t relegated to insurance providers. Hospital systems, pharmacy benefit managers and physician groups had to consolidate to survive the new Obamacare marketplace.
Insurers that stayed and participated in the exchanges have now found it a profitable enterprise, the report states.
“After narrowing in the initial years of ACA implementation, the gap between individual market premiums and claims payments was much higher in 2017 than pre-ACA,” the White House economists report. “As of 2017, most Blue Cross Blue Shield regional insurers, the main insurers left in the ACA-compliant individual and small group markets, have better profit margins than during the initial years of offering plans in marketplaces and have returned to pre-ACA profitability.”
Wednesday’s findings come in stark contrast to what major insurance providers on the state Obamacare exchanges have said for years. Every year since Obamacare’s full implementation–most recently during the numerous 2017 GOP repeal and replace attempts–major insurance companies, like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna and UnitedHealth, have threatened to drop out, or dropped out, of state exchanges because they fear it will no longer be possible to make a profit.
When they dropped out or threatened to do so, insurance companies main concern was whether or not the federal government would continue to pay out Obamacare subsidies, known as cost-sharing reductions (CSRs).
CSRs remained a critical point of debate for House and Senate lawmakers heading into Wednesday’s expected unveiling of a must-pass spending bill to keep the government funded through Sept. 30. The subsidies are not expected to be in the final version of the spending bill, but Democrats, along with a handful of GOP lawmakers, consider them vital stabilizing the Obamacare marketplace.
The White House report may not help their case in securing CSR funding.
“Insurers remaining in the individual and small group markets seem to have recently accounted for ACA regulations and an older, more costly risk pool than they expected by charging higher premiums that have largely been covered by federal government premium subsidies,” the economists wrote. “Large insurers, many of whom left the individual market, are profiting from the Medicaid expansion, which is largely provided through private managed care and paid for by the federal government.”
The White House says it expects insurance company profits to continue to grow following the GOP tax law.
Insurance companies will submit their 2019 filings for the Obamacare marketplaces in the next few weeks.
Follow Robert Donachie on Twitter and Facebook
Thank You Mr Donachie and the DC.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
ObamaCare Recruiters Get $1.2 Billion Under Proposed Law
It's Anytime of the year in DC, and the idiots are in bloom.
Judicial Watch
FEBRUARY 01, 2018
A fraud-infested Obamacare “outreach” program will get an astounding $1.2 billion from American taxpayers if legislation introduced by a veteran congresswoman becomes law. The preposterous measure, introduced by California Democrat Maxine Waters a few week ago, aims to recruit customers for the health insurance exchanges set up under Obama’s disastrous healthcare overhaul. The 14-term congresswoman, investigated by the House Ethics Committee for steering federal funds to her husband’s failing Massachusetts bank, crafted the law because the Trump administration slashed Obamacare outreach funding by more than 90%.
“Our health care system is under attack by a president, administration, and Republican-controlled Congress that – after numerous failed attempts to repeal Obamacare – are sabotaging it for political gain,” Waters said in a statement. “My legislation seeks to reverse their vindictive efforts to undermine and de-stabilize our health care system by ensuring that all consumers are provided with the information they need to make timely and well-informed decisions when purchasing health coverage through the federal and state-run marketplaces.” The bill, Affordable Care Act (ACA) Outreach for the Uninsured, Transformative Recruitment, and Enrollment Action for Compassionate Healthcare (ACA OUTREACH) Act, is cosponsored by 36 other lawmakers. If it passes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would dole out $300 million annually through 2021 for “navigator” grants. Minority and underserved communities would be especially targeted, according to language in the bill’s text.
The Obamacare navigator program was rife with fraud and corruption and Judicial Watch sued HHS back in 2014 to obtain records that the agency refused to provide under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In 2013, the Obama administration gave dozens of leftists organizations a whopping $67 million to help people “navigate” health insurance exchanges that weren’t even fully established. In a “culturally competent manner” the so-called navigators were tasked with helping people shop for and enroll in plans that would eventually be available on the federal government market places. The money was divided between 105 mostly leftist groups that assisted and recruited the uninsured to sign up for coverage and understand their options.
Here are a few examples of the community organizations that received navigator grants from the government; an Arizona nonprofit called “Campesinos Sin Fronteras” that provides services to farm workers and low-income Hispanics; a south Florida legal group that provided navigators in “racially, ethnically, linguistically, culturally and socioeconomically diverse” communities; three Planned Parenthood branches—in Iowa, Montana and New Hampshire—got a combined $655,000 to serve as navigators. Others include; the Arab Community Center in Michigan, which got nearly $300,000 to reach out to and engage uninsured community members through “multicultural” media. A Black Chamber of Commerce in South Carolina received north of $230,000 to “provide outreach around new coverage options” and a Hispanic aging group in Texas got over $646,000 help members that are “socially isolated due to cultural and linguistic differences.”
Some of the navigator money went to a labor front group called Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York headed by an illegal immigrant activist named Maria Marroquin. The group received navigator funds shortly after Marroquin, an illegal alien from Peru, had been arrested for participating in disruptive demonstrations protesting the deportation of fellow undocumented immigrants and demanding amnesty.
Besides the outrage of hiring an illegal immigrant to promote a U.S. government program, it’s equally disturbing to know that navigators have access to the sensitive personal information of healthcare enrollees. This includes Social Security numbers, which can be used for identity theft, a rampant crime among illegal alien populations seeking to establish residency and land jobs in the U.S.
Navigator funds also went to a nonprofit (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with such a huge history of corruption that Congress issued a federal funding ban. As part of a broader investigation into ACORN Judicial Watch obtained records showing that HHS violated the congressional ACORN funding ban by awarding a Louisiana nonprofit called Southern United Neighborhoods (SUN) a $1.3 million Obamacare navigator grant to recruit customers. Headquartered in New Orleans, SUN is dedicated to combating poverty, discrimination and community deterioration that keep low-income people from taking advantage of their rights and opportunities, according to its website.
Thank You Judicial Watch.
Judicial Watch
FEBRUARY 01, 2018
A fraud-infested Obamacare “outreach” program will get an astounding $1.2 billion from American taxpayers if legislation introduced by a veteran congresswoman becomes law. The preposterous measure, introduced by California Democrat Maxine Waters a few week ago, aims to recruit customers for the health insurance exchanges set up under Obama’s disastrous healthcare overhaul. The 14-term congresswoman, investigated by the House Ethics Committee for steering federal funds to her husband’s failing Massachusetts bank, crafted the law because the Trump administration slashed Obamacare outreach funding by more than 90%.
“Our health care system is under attack by a president, administration, and Republican-controlled Congress that – after numerous failed attempts to repeal Obamacare – are sabotaging it for political gain,” Waters said in a statement. “My legislation seeks to reverse their vindictive efforts to undermine and de-stabilize our health care system by ensuring that all consumers are provided with the information they need to make timely and well-informed decisions when purchasing health coverage through the federal and state-run marketplaces.” The bill, Affordable Care Act (ACA) Outreach for the Uninsured, Transformative Recruitment, and Enrollment Action for Compassionate Healthcare (ACA OUTREACH) Act, is cosponsored by 36 other lawmakers. If it passes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would dole out $300 million annually through 2021 for “navigator” grants. Minority and underserved communities would be especially targeted, according to language in the bill’s text.
The Obamacare navigator program was rife with fraud and corruption and Judicial Watch sued HHS back in 2014 to obtain records that the agency refused to provide under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In 2013, the Obama administration gave dozens of leftists organizations a whopping $67 million to help people “navigate” health insurance exchanges that weren’t even fully established. In a “culturally competent manner” the so-called navigators were tasked with helping people shop for and enroll in plans that would eventually be available on the federal government market places. The money was divided between 105 mostly leftist groups that assisted and recruited the uninsured to sign up for coverage and understand their options.
Here are a few examples of the community organizations that received navigator grants from the government; an Arizona nonprofit called “Campesinos Sin Fronteras” that provides services to farm workers and low-income Hispanics; a south Florida legal group that provided navigators in “racially, ethnically, linguistically, culturally and socioeconomically diverse” communities; three Planned Parenthood branches—in Iowa, Montana and New Hampshire—got a combined $655,000 to serve as navigators. Others include; the Arab Community Center in Michigan, which got nearly $300,000 to reach out to and engage uninsured community members through “multicultural” media. A Black Chamber of Commerce in South Carolina received north of $230,000 to “provide outreach around new coverage options” and a Hispanic aging group in Texas got over $646,000 help members that are “socially isolated due to cultural and linguistic differences.”
Some of the navigator money went to a labor front group called Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York headed by an illegal immigrant activist named Maria Marroquin. The group received navigator funds shortly after Marroquin, an illegal alien from Peru, had been arrested for participating in disruptive demonstrations protesting the deportation of fellow undocumented immigrants and demanding amnesty.
Besides the outrage of hiring an illegal immigrant to promote a U.S. government program, it’s equally disturbing to know that navigators have access to the sensitive personal information of healthcare enrollees. This includes Social Security numbers, which can be used for identity theft, a rampant crime among illegal alien populations seeking to establish residency and land jobs in the U.S.
Navigator funds also went to a nonprofit (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with such a huge history of corruption that Congress issued a federal funding ban. As part of a broader investigation into ACORN Judicial Watch obtained records showing that HHS violated the congressional ACORN funding ban by awarding a Louisiana nonprofit called Southern United Neighborhoods (SUN) a $1.3 million Obamacare navigator grant to recruit customers. Headquartered in New Orleans, SUN is dedicated to combating poverty, discrimination and community deterioration that keep low-income people from taking advantage of their rights and opportunities, according to its website.
Thank You Judicial Watch.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Insolvent New Mexico Obamacare Co-op Boasted 6 Figure Salaries
dailycaller
Richard Pollock Reporter
4:31 PM 01/10/2018
New Mexico Health Connections, one of the four remaining nonprofit Obamacare Co-ops, did not inform its customers in June that it was insolvent and its entire board had resigned, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.
It also never told its customers the nonprofit paid its executives up to $450,000 in annual salaries.
The nonprofit, one of 24 Co-op’s originally set up under Obamacare, was supposed to provide affordable health insurance to individuals, predominantly low-income citizens. The demise of the New Mexico Co-op means that only three are fully functioning.
The New Mexico Co-op boasted extraordinarily high six figure salaries per year like many other failed Obamacare nonprofits, according to a DCNF review of its 2015 tax filing Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service.
Dr. Martin Hickey, the nonprofit’s CEO, received a $450,000 salary, according to its 990. It is unclear what his compensation was in 2017 when the Co-op notified the state insurance superintendent it was insolvent.
All 12 of the nonprofit’s top staff received six-figure salaries, according to its tax filing. Joining Hickey was Chief Medical Officer Dr. Mark Epstein who received an annual salary of $413,000, Chief Operating Officer Anne Sapon who received $342,000, and Primary Care staffer Frances Torres who received $318,000.
The New Mexico Co-op burned through $77.3 million in federal loans awarded by the Obama administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid in 2012. The nonprofit was “bleeding about $20 million in red ink a year,” an Albuquerque Journal editorial noted.
Customers first learned in September the Co-op was facing financial difficulties. It announced an agreement to sell its small and large business policies to a for-profit company called Evolent Health for $10 million in cash.
The deal meant the insolvent nonprofit would continue serving individual customers – its most vulnerable and poorest customers. About 22,000 customers were affected.
The nonprofit’s dire financial straits were so severe its total capital and surplus were $3.5 million even after the infusion of $10 million, according to its Sept. 30 financial filings as reported by the Journal last December.
Co-op customers also weren’t informed that their insurer was insolvent and its board had resigned until after the Obamacare “open enrollment” period for 2018 had expired.
Under New Mexico law, that state can take over insurers that face financial distress. Yet, the state did not assume control of Health Connections after the resignation of its board last June, according to the Albuquerque Journal. Instead, it allowed True Health to take over the two smaller divisions and permitted the individual market customers to remain in the cash-strapped nonprofit.
Hickey, the highest paid Co-op executive, left the nonprofit and joined True Health, Evolent’s subsidiary. True Health did not respond to a DCNF inquiry about his current compensation.
Sapon, in a Linked-In posting in the first week of 2018 attempted to claim the co-op wasn’t facing any financial distress.
“The nonprofit’s leadership have continued NMHC is happy to announce that, contrary to rumors that have been circulating, the company is in a great financial position for the coming year,” he wrote. “We look forward to continuing to serve our members with the same high levels of care, expertise, and compassion that we have been providing for the past four years. We wish you a healthy and happy 2018!”
“We all wanted the company to succeed, but we were effectively insolvent in June,” said Diane Denish, a Co-op board member and New Mexico’s lieutenant governor under Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson in an interview with the Journal on Jan. 9.
Other insurance companies are facing significant losses because of the nonprofit’s insolvency. The largest creditor is Presbyterian Healthcare Services, which is owed $7.6 million. Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico said Health Connections will likely owe it several million dollars.
Thank You Mr Pollock and the DC.
Richard Pollock Reporter
4:31 PM 01/10/2018
New Mexico Health Connections, one of the four remaining nonprofit Obamacare Co-ops, did not inform its customers in June that it was insolvent and its entire board had resigned, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.
It also never told its customers the nonprofit paid its executives up to $450,000 in annual salaries.
The nonprofit, one of 24 Co-op’s originally set up under Obamacare, was supposed to provide affordable health insurance to individuals, predominantly low-income citizens. The demise of the New Mexico Co-op means that only three are fully functioning.
The New Mexico Co-op boasted extraordinarily high six figure salaries per year like many other failed Obamacare nonprofits, according to a DCNF review of its 2015 tax filing Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service.
Dr. Martin Hickey, the nonprofit’s CEO, received a $450,000 salary, according to its 990. It is unclear what his compensation was in 2017 when the Co-op notified the state insurance superintendent it was insolvent.
All 12 of the nonprofit’s top staff received six-figure salaries, according to its tax filing. Joining Hickey was Chief Medical Officer Dr. Mark Epstein who received an annual salary of $413,000, Chief Operating Officer Anne Sapon who received $342,000, and Primary Care staffer Frances Torres who received $318,000.
The New Mexico Co-op burned through $77.3 million in federal loans awarded by the Obama administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid in 2012. The nonprofit was “bleeding about $20 million in red ink a year,” an Albuquerque Journal editorial noted.
Customers first learned in September the Co-op was facing financial difficulties. It announced an agreement to sell its small and large business policies to a for-profit company called Evolent Health for $10 million in cash.
The deal meant the insolvent nonprofit would continue serving individual customers – its most vulnerable and poorest customers. About 22,000 customers were affected.
The nonprofit’s dire financial straits were so severe its total capital and surplus were $3.5 million even after the infusion of $10 million, according to its Sept. 30 financial filings as reported by the Journal last December.
Co-op customers also weren’t informed that their insurer was insolvent and its board had resigned until after the Obamacare “open enrollment” period for 2018 had expired.
Under New Mexico law, that state can take over insurers that face financial distress. Yet, the state did not assume control of Health Connections after the resignation of its board last June, according to the Albuquerque Journal. Instead, it allowed True Health to take over the two smaller divisions and permitted the individual market customers to remain in the cash-strapped nonprofit.
Hickey, the highest paid Co-op executive, left the nonprofit and joined True Health, Evolent’s subsidiary. True Health did not respond to a DCNF inquiry about his current compensation.
Sapon, in a Linked-In posting in the first week of 2018 attempted to claim the co-op wasn’t facing any financial distress.
“The nonprofit’s leadership have continued NMHC is happy to announce that, contrary to rumors that have been circulating, the company is in a great financial position for the coming year,” he wrote. “We look forward to continuing to serve our members with the same high levels of care, expertise, and compassion that we have been providing for the past four years. We wish you a healthy and happy 2018!”
“We all wanted the company to succeed, but we were effectively insolvent in June,” said Diane Denish, a Co-op board member and New Mexico’s lieutenant governor under Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson in an interview with the Journal on Jan. 9.
Other insurance companies are facing significant losses because of the nonprofit’s insolvency. The largest creditor is Presbyterian Healthcare Services, which is owed $7.6 million. Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico said Health Connections will likely owe it several million dollars.
Thank You Mr Pollock and the DC.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Waiting Times For Canada's Single-Payer Health Care System Hit Record High
freebeacon
Ali Meyer
December 13, 2017 3:15 pm
Democratic senators including Sanders, Warren, and Gillibrand tout benefits of Canada's system as model for U.S.
Waiting times for medically necessary health care services under Canada's single-payer system have hit a record high, according to a report from the Fraser Institute.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) has touted Canada's single-payer system, saying it is a model the United States should follow. He introduced a "Medicare for All" plan this past September.
"The issue that has got to be studied is how does it happen that here in Canada they provide quality care to all people, and I don't think there is any debate that the quality of care here is as good or better than the United States, and they do it for half the cost," Sanders said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) cosponsored Sanders's bill, saying she believes the measure will bring high-quality and low-cost care to Americans. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) wrote a provision in Sanders's bill allowing Americans to buy into a public plan during the transition to single-payer.
The Fraser Institute found that patients under Canada's single-payer system this year waited an average of 10.9 weeks—roughly two-and-a-half months—from the time they had a consultation with a specialist to the time at which they received treatment. Physicians consider 7.2 weeks to be a clinically reasonable wait time.
The report also found that patients' wait for treatment after referral to a specialist by their general practitioner was 21.2 weeks, or longer than four months.
"This year's wait time—the longest ever recorded in this survey's history—is 128 percent longer than in 1993, when it was just 9.3 weeks," the report states.
The report, which looks at 10 provinces in Canada, found that there are 1,040,791 patients waiting for procedures. There are also high wait times to receive scans and ultrasounds. Patients waited an average of 10.8 weeks for an MRI scan and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.
"Research has repeatedly indicated that wait times for medically necessary treatment are not benign inconveniences," the report states. "Wait times can, and do, have serious consequences such as increased pain, suffering, and mental anguish."
According to the report, patients experience long wait times for surgeries, waiting as long as 41.7 weeks for orthopedic surgery, 32.9 weeks for neurosurgery, and 31.4 weeks for ophthalmology.
"In certain instances, [wait times] can also result in poorer medical outcomes—transforming potentially reversible illnesses or injuries into chronic, irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities," the report states. "In many instances, patients may also have to forgo their wages while they wait for treatment, resulting in an economic cost to the individuals themselves and the economy in general."
Fraser points out that previous studies have found the lost economic output in waiting for joint replacement surgery, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, MRI scans, and cataract surgery totaled $14.8 billion in 2007.
The report also notes that 46.3 percent of patients would prefer to have their procedure performed within a week if they had the opportunity to do so.
Sally Pipes, a former Canadian and president of the Pacific Research Institute, said one of the incentives for her to come to America was the growing problem with Canada's health care system.
Pipes's mother, who lived in Canada, died from colon cancer in 2005 because she couldn't get a colonoscopy. She finally received one two weeks before she died when she was hemorrhaging.
"Why is it that politicians are out there calling for single payer when we have an example of a real single payer system right north of the border and that 63,500 Canadians go abroad in order to get procedures when they think the wait times are too long?" Pipes asks. "Right now in Canada there's just over a million Canadians waiting on a waiting list to get a procedure."
"The thing that is very worrying to me is this rising call for single payer, both at the state level and nationally in the United States by Bernie Sanders and 16 other senators, a number of people in the House—116 House members want Medicare for all and yet in Canada you hear all [these] stories about the waiting times," she said.
Pipes said Americans would be appalled by the quality of the hospitals and their equipment in Canada and that is because government is calling the shots, which increases wait times and rations care. She says an example of a true single-payer system in the United States is the Veterans Administration.
"We've just seen in the last couple of years all of the problems with the VA and the waiting times for our Vets and the lack of access to the latest procedures even under the Veterans Choice Program," Pipes said. "This is what will happen if Bernie Sanders gets his way."
"I just can't imagine that Americans would tolerate waiting 4.1 weeks for a CT scan, 10.8 weeks for an MRI, and 4 weeks for an ultrasound, but that’s what happens when government is the sole provider of your health care," she said. "Canada spends 11.5 percent of its gross domestic product on health care and in order to keep that number at that level they have to ration care and deny care, and you have long waits."
Pipes also refutes Sanders's claim that Canada's system offers relatively the same quality of care at a cheaper cost.
"It isn't cheaper because Canadians pay for health care through their taxes," Pipes explains. "The average Canadian family pays anywhere between $4,000 and $12,000 a year in taxes for a system where they have to wait over five months from seeing a primary care doctor to getting treatment by a specialist."
"There's fewer doctors relative to the population than in all but four other industrialized countries," she said. "It's last in terms of acute care hospital beds and there's doctor shortages, residency spots are down, and waiting times—this is what happens when government controls the health care system, and this is what Bernie Sanders wants for the United States."
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Canada, Health Care, Medicare. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank You Ms Meyer and Free Beacon.
Ali Meyer
December 13, 2017 3:15 pm
Democratic senators including Sanders, Warren, and Gillibrand tout benefits of Canada's system as model for U.S.
Waiting times for medically necessary health care services under Canada's single-payer system have hit a record high, according to a report from the Fraser Institute.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) has touted Canada's single-payer system, saying it is a model the United States should follow. He introduced a "Medicare for All" plan this past September.
"The issue that has got to be studied is how does it happen that here in Canada they provide quality care to all people, and I don't think there is any debate that the quality of care here is as good or better than the United States, and they do it for half the cost," Sanders said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) cosponsored Sanders's bill, saying she believes the measure will bring high-quality and low-cost care to Americans. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) wrote a provision in Sanders's bill allowing Americans to buy into a public plan during the transition to single-payer.
The Fraser Institute found that patients under Canada's single-payer system this year waited an average of 10.9 weeks—roughly two-and-a-half months—from the time they had a consultation with a specialist to the time at which they received treatment. Physicians consider 7.2 weeks to be a clinically reasonable wait time.
The report also found that patients' wait for treatment after referral to a specialist by their general practitioner was 21.2 weeks, or longer than four months.
"This year's wait time—the longest ever recorded in this survey's history—is 128 percent longer than in 1993, when it was just 9.3 weeks," the report states.
The report, which looks at 10 provinces in Canada, found that there are 1,040,791 patients waiting for procedures. There are also high wait times to receive scans and ultrasounds. Patients waited an average of 10.8 weeks for an MRI scan and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.
"Research has repeatedly indicated that wait times for medically necessary treatment are not benign inconveniences," the report states. "Wait times can, and do, have serious consequences such as increased pain, suffering, and mental anguish."
According to the report, patients experience long wait times for surgeries, waiting as long as 41.7 weeks for orthopedic surgery, 32.9 weeks for neurosurgery, and 31.4 weeks for ophthalmology.
"In certain instances, [wait times] can also result in poorer medical outcomes—transforming potentially reversible illnesses or injuries into chronic, irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities," the report states. "In many instances, patients may also have to forgo their wages while they wait for treatment, resulting in an economic cost to the individuals themselves and the economy in general."
Fraser points out that previous studies have found the lost economic output in waiting for joint replacement surgery, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, MRI scans, and cataract surgery totaled $14.8 billion in 2007.
The report also notes that 46.3 percent of patients would prefer to have their procedure performed within a week if they had the opportunity to do so.
Sally Pipes, a former Canadian and president of the Pacific Research Institute, said one of the incentives for her to come to America was the growing problem with Canada's health care system.
Pipes's mother, who lived in Canada, died from colon cancer in 2005 because she couldn't get a colonoscopy. She finally received one two weeks before she died when she was hemorrhaging.
"Why is it that politicians are out there calling for single payer when we have an example of a real single payer system right north of the border and that 63,500 Canadians go abroad in order to get procedures when they think the wait times are too long?" Pipes asks. "Right now in Canada there's just over a million Canadians waiting on a waiting list to get a procedure."
"The thing that is very worrying to me is this rising call for single payer, both at the state level and nationally in the United States by Bernie Sanders and 16 other senators, a number of people in the House—116 House members want Medicare for all and yet in Canada you hear all [these] stories about the waiting times," she said.
Pipes said Americans would be appalled by the quality of the hospitals and their equipment in Canada and that is because government is calling the shots, which increases wait times and rations care. She says an example of a true single-payer system in the United States is the Veterans Administration.
"We've just seen in the last couple of years all of the problems with the VA and the waiting times for our Vets and the lack of access to the latest procedures even under the Veterans Choice Program," Pipes said. "This is what will happen if Bernie Sanders gets his way."
"I just can't imagine that Americans would tolerate waiting 4.1 weeks for a CT scan, 10.8 weeks for an MRI, and 4 weeks for an ultrasound, but that’s what happens when government is the sole provider of your health care," she said. "Canada spends 11.5 percent of its gross domestic product on health care and in order to keep that number at that level they have to ration care and deny care, and you have long waits."
Pipes also refutes Sanders's claim that Canada's system offers relatively the same quality of care at a cheaper cost.
"It isn't cheaper because Canadians pay for health care through their taxes," Pipes explains. "The average Canadian family pays anywhere between $4,000 and $12,000 a year in taxes for a system where they have to wait over five months from seeing a primary care doctor to getting treatment by a specialist."
"There's fewer doctors relative to the population than in all but four other industrialized countries," she said. "It's last in terms of acute care hospital beds and there's doctor shortages, residency spots are down, and waiting times—this is what happens when government controls the health care system, and this is what Bernie Sanders wants for the United States."
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Canada, Health Care, Medicare. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank You Ms Meyer and Free Beacon.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Consumers STILL Face Obamacare Website Glitches For 2018 Healthcare
dailycaller
Nick GivasMedia Reporter
8:09 PM 12/11/2017
The Obamacare enrollment website HealtCare.gov is still having technical problems, as consumer advocates report continued glitches and misinformation as the deadline to enroll approaches.
Illinois customers who completed the enrollment were told they were eligible for subsidized health care, but received a message saying no plans were available to them in their area, The Associated Press reported.
Stephani Becker of the National Center on Poverty Law in Chicago told The AP the glitch began late last week and continued into Monday. Becker also said the issue extends beyond Illinois into other states, and believes consumers might give up and “just walk away” when faced with such an obstacle.
President Donald Trump’s administration’s decision to cut funding for Obamacare navigators may cause the process to become even more confusing, as navigators are tasked with helping consumers find the health plan that’s best suits them. Some navigator programs may be cut by as much as 90 percent.
The deadline to enroll in Obamacare — former President Barack Obama’s signature health law — is Friday Dec. 15th, and a last-minute push is expected as millions of patients seek to shore up health insurance for 2018. The increased volume of customers may dramatically slow the site, and even cause it to crash.
This wouldn’t be the first time HealthCare.gov has faced technical problems. During the initial roll out in 2013, former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the site a “miserably frustrating experience” and said the federal government had underestimated how disorganized it actually was.
The site continued to experience a series of crashes and delays, prompting Obama to apologize to the American people for the botched roll out.
“We worked hard to try to make sure that we implemented it [Obamacare] properly,” Obama told Chuck Todd of MSNBC in a 2013 interview. “But obviously we didn’t do a good enough job, and I regret that.”
Some states such as New York and California are extending the deadline past the 15th, and those living in hurricane ravaged areas like Texas and Florida will have until Dec. 31st to enroll, The AP reports.
Thank You Mr Givas and the DC.
Nick GivasMedia Reporter
8:09 PM 12/11/2017
The Obamacare enrollment website HealtCare.gov is still having technical problems, as consumer advocates report continued glitches and misinformation as the deadline to enroll approaches.
Illinois customers who completed the enrollment were told they were eligible for subsidized health care, but received a message saying no plans were available to them in their area, The Associated Press reported.
Stephani Becker of the National Center on Poverty Law in Chicago told The AP the glitch began late last week and continued into Monday. Becker also said the issue extends beyond Illinois into other states, and believes consumers might give up and “just walk away” when faced with such an obstacle.
President Donald Trump’s administration’s decision to cut funding for Obamacare navigators may cause the process to become even more confusing, as navigators are tasked with helping consumers find the health plan that’s best suits them. Some navigator programs may be cut by as much as 90 percent.
The deadline to enroll in Obamacare — former President Barack Obama’s signature health law — is Friday Dec. 15th, and a last-minute push is expected as millions of patients seek to shore up health insurance for 2018. The increased volume of customers may dramatically slow the site, and even cause it to crash.
This wouldn’t be the first time HealthCare.gov has faced technical problems. During the initial roll out in 2013, former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the site a “miserably frustrating experience” and said the federal government had underestimated how disorganized it actually was.
The site continued to experience a series of crashes and delays, prompting Obama to apologize to the American people for the botched roll out.
“We worked hard to try to make sure that we implemented it [Obamacare] properly,” Obama told Chuck Todd of MSNBC in a 2013 interview. “But obviously we didn’t do a good enough job, and I regret that.”
Some states such as New York and California are extending the deadline past the 15th, and those living in hurricane ravaged areas like Texas and Florida will have until Dec. 31st to enroll, The AP reports.
Thank You Mr Givas and the DC.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
This Is Govt Healthcare: Discounted Medicines For Hospitals But Not For You. Enough!
fox news
By Steve Forbes | Fox News
Read more
Thank You Mr Forbes and Fox.
By Steve Forbes | Fox News
It is no secret that federal health programs are
growing at an unwieldy and ultimately cataclysmic rate. ObamaCare,
Medicaid expansion, growing entitlements and new mandates are all
contributing to the unchecked expansion of government controlled health
care and the increasing liability for taxpayers.
In simple terms, the solution is to
institute policies that will allow free-market principles to foster an
environment where the individual patient is empowered just as customers
are in virtually every other market. Such a market would allow consumers
to choose medical care and insurance based on value and cost, rather
than allow market participants and providers to rig the system to reap
windfall profits due to government patronage.
This consolidation of medical services at the expense of patients shockingly underscores what government intrusion ultimately means for health care – less access, fewer choices and increased costs for patients, and taxpayers.
Read more
Thank You Mr Forbes and Fox.
Friday, November 24, 2017
This Obamacare Enrollment Assistance Group Got $200K In Fed Funds, Enrolled 1 Person
zerohedge
by Tyler Durden
Nov 24, 2017 12:05 PM
Earlier this summer, congressional democrats lost their collective minds
when the Trump administration announced plans to cut Obamacare's
marketing budget from $100 million down to $10 million (see: Democrats Furious After Trump Announces 90% Cut To Obamacare Marketing Funds). Here was Chuck Schumer's response:
Ed; just use the link.
Now, per a note from MSNBC,
we're getting some new data on just how effective Obama's $100 million
marketing budget has been. According to data supplied by the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, one group in South Dakota received $200,000 worth of federal funding and managed to sign up just one person.
Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge
Read More.
A group that is supposed to help Native Americans sign up for Obamacare coverage in South Dakota received $200,000 in federal funds to support its efforts — and managed to sign up just one person in an Obamacare plan, the Trump administration said Wednesday.
The group, the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Health Board, had better luck in North Dakota — where it assisted 67 people in shopping for and enrolling in an Obamacare plan that went into effect in 2017.
But in that state, GPTCHB received an additional $154,000 in federal cash for its efforts.
That works out to nearly $3,000 per Obamacare enrollee of GPTCHB's in North Dakota.
In both Dakotas, the group's work cost taxpayers $5,200 per enrollee, according to data from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge
Read More.
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Senate Finance Committee Accepts Proposal To Eliminate ObamaCare Individual Mandate: Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas)
Senator Tom Cotton:
Cotton Statement on Individual Mandate and Tax Reform
November 14, 2017
Contact: Caroline Rabbitt Tabler (202) 224-2353
Washington, D.C. - Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) today released the following statement on the Senate Finance Committee's decision to include his proposal to repeal the Obamacare individual mandate in the tax legislation:
"I'm pleased the Senate Finance Committee has accepted my proposal to repeal the Obamacare individual mandate in the tax legislation. Repealing the mandate pays for more tax cuts for working families and protects them from being fined by the IRS for not being able to afford insurance that Obamacare made unaffordable in the first place. I urge the House to include the mandate repeal in their tax legislation."
Good. If they and the House don't, they can happily return to being the Do-Nothing Minority Party in Both Houses comes the next election, as opposed to being the Feckless, Happy Go Lucky Do-Nothing Majority Party they are this year.
This isn't even 1% of what needs doing by the GOP, but it is non-negotiable with 95% of their voters.
McConnell and Ryan must be dropping litters of kittens over this.
Thank You Senator Cotton.
See Also;
Senators Pat Toomey, Tom Cotton Introduce Bill That Offers Exemptions To ACA's Individual Mandate
Washington, D.C. - Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) today released the following statement on the Senate Finance Committee's decision to include his proposal to repeal the Obamacare individual mandate in the tax legislation:
"I'm pleased the Senate Finance Committee has accepted my proposal to repeal the Obamacare individual mandate in the tax legislation. Repealing the mandate pays for more tax cuts for working families and protects them from being fined by the IRS for not being able to afford insurance that Obamacare made unaffordable in the first place. I urge the House to include the mandate repeal in their tax legislation."
Good. If they and the House don't, they can happily return to being the Do-Nothing Minority Party in Both Houses comes the next election, as opposed to being the Feckless, Happy Go Lucky Do-Nothing Majority Party they are this year.
This isn't even 1% of what needs doing by the GOP, but it is non-negotiable with 95% of their voters.
McConnell and Ryan must be dropping litters of kittens over this.
Thank You Senator Cotton.
See Also;
Senators Pat Toomey, Tom Cotton Introduce Bill That Offers Exemptions To ACA's Individual Mandate
Friday, November 10, 2017
CBO: Repealing Obamacare's Individual Mandate Would Reduce Deficit By $338 Billion
freebeacon
Ali Meyer
November 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Expert says repealing Obamacare's mandate should be included in House and Senate tax reform proposals
Repealing the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate would reduce the federal deficit by $338 billion in the next decade, according to a projection from the Congressional Budget Office.
The individual mandate requires that Americans purchase health insurance or pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for not having coverage. A recent Taxpayer Advocate Service report found that roughly 4 million Americans paid an average penalty of about $708 this year for a total of $2.8 billion.
The budget office predicts that eliminating the mandate would reduce the deficit by $338 billion from 2018 to 2027 and would decrease the number of those with health insurance by 4 million in 2019 and by 13 million in 2027. Even with this loss, the report says that markets would remain stable in almost all areas of the United States over the next decade.
"We're seeing with the CBO report that repealing the mandate would reduce the deficit by nearly $340 billion over 10 years," says Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute. "The report estimates that by 2027, about 13 million fewer Americans would enroll in ACA-compliant plans."
"What's great news is that if the mandate were repealed, most markets would remain stable," she said. "That's significant for the millions of Americans who would become free to purchase other health care plans that are better fits for them and their families."
The budget office also projects that premiums would increase by about 10 percent over the decade but says this is due to healthier individuals choosing not to purchase health insurance.
"The individual mandate is one of the most unpopular Obamacare-era regulations—and it's largely been a failure," Pipes said. "Not as many Americans are insured in the Obamacare insurance exchanges as originally projected, and premiums have skyrocketed since 2013."
Pipes says it's disappointing that neither the Senate nor the House has included the mandate repeal in the most recent versions of their tax reform bills.
"However, it could—and should—be added to future versions," she said. "I'm hopeful that the CBO's report will help accelerate the process of getting rid of the mandate. It could also be done either through Sens. Tom Cotton and Pat Toomey's Mandate Relief Act, or an executive order from the president. With that said, I don't think it can be fully repealed through an executive order."
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Health Care, Individual Mandate, Obamacare, Tax Reform. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank You Ms Meyer and Free Beacon.
Ali Meyer
November 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Expert says repealing Obamacare's mandate should be included in House and Senate tax reform proposals
Repealing the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate would reduce the federal deficit by $338 billion in the next decade, according to a projection from the Congressional Budget Office.
The individual mandate requires that Americans purchase health insurance or pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for not having coverage. A recent Taxpayer Advocate Service report found that roughly 4 million Americans paid an average penalty of about $708 this year for a total of $2.8 billion.
The budget office predicts that eliminating the mandate would reduce the deficit by $338 billion from 2018 to 2027 and would decrease the number of those with health insurance by 4 million in 2019 and by 13 million in 2027. Even with this loss, the report says that markets would remain stable in almost all areas of the United States over the next decade.
"We're seeing with the CBO report that repealing the mandate would reduce the deficit by nearly $340 billion over 10 years," says Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute. "The report estimates that by 2027, about 13 million fewer Americans would enroll in ACA-compliant plans."
"What's great news is that if the mandate were repealed, most markets would remain stable," she said. "That's significant for the millions of Americans who would become free to purchase other health care plans that are better fits for them and their families."
The budget office also projects that premiums would increase by about 10 percent over the decade but says this is due to healthier individuals choosing not to purchase health insurance.
"The individual mandate is one of the most unpopular Obamacare-era regulations—and it's largely been a failure," Pipes said. "Not as many Americans are insured in the Obamacare insurance exchanges as originally projected, and premiums have skyrocketed since 2013."
Pipes says it's disappointing that neither the Senate nor the House has included the mandate repeal in the most recent versions of their tax reform bills.
"However, it could—and should—be added to future versions," she said. "I'm hopeful that the CBO's report will help accelerate the process of getting rid of the mandate. It could also be done either through Sens. Tom Cotton and Pat Toomey's Mandate Relief Act, or an executive order from the president. With that said, I don't think it can be fully repealed through an executive order."
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Health Care, Individual Mandate, Obamacare, Tax Reform. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank You Ms Meyer and Free Beacon.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Report: ObamaCare Premiums Up 37% As Health Insurer Participation Declines
freebeacon
Ali Meyer
October 30, 2017 11:10 am
Fewer enrollees will have access to a plan costing less than $200 a month
The average monthly premium for Obamacare's second-lowest cost silver plan, otherwise known as the benchmark plan, is up 37 percent from 2017, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. From 2016 to 2017, the premium for this type of plan increased by 24 percent.
According to the report, in 2014, when Obamacare was first implemented, the premium for the benchmark plan totaled $218 for a 27-year-old. In 2018, that same premium is expected to rise to $411.
Premiums are also increasing by 17 percent for Obamacare's lowest-cost plan. The report finds that fewer and fewer enrollees will have access to a plan that costs less than $200 a month.
"The percentage of current enrollees with access to a plan for $200 or less decreased from 16 percent for plan year 2017 to 6 percent to plan year 2018," the report states. "If enrollees were to stay within their current metal level, only 2 percent will have access to coverage with premiums of $200 or less for plan year 2018."
Taxpayers are also expected to see higher costs as premium subsidies have grown along with premium increases. In plan year 2014 when Obamacare coverage began, the average advance premium tax credit totaled $259. This year, that tax credit increased to $382, and it is projected to grow by 45 percent to $555 in the 2018 plan year.
While enrollees and taxpayers are seeing higher costs, health insurer participation and plan choices are on the decline. The report finds there will only be 132 health insurers participating next year, a decline of 21 percent from the 167 insurers participating in 2017.
There are eight states—Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming—that will only have one health insurer participating in the entire state. In 2016, only 2 percent of Obamacare enrollees had one choice on the exchange. Next year, that number is expected to increase to 29 percent.
"This data demonstrates just how rapidly Obamacare’s exchanges are deteriorating with skyrocketing premiums year after year, more than half of Americans with no more than two insurers to choose from, and the taxpayer burden exploding," said Caitlin Oakley, press secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
"There is an urgent and serious need to repeal this failed law and replace it with patient-centered solutions," she said.
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Health Insurance, Obamacare. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank You Ms Meyer and Free Beacon.
Ali Meyer
October 30, 2017 11:10 am
Fewer enrollees will have access to a plan costing less than $200 a month
The average monthly premium for Obamacare's second-lowest cost silver plan, otherwise known as the benchmark plan, is up 37 percent from 2017, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. From 2016 to 2017, the premium for this type of plan increased by 24 percent.
According to the report, in 2014, when Obamacare was first implemented, the premium for the benchmark plan totaled $218 for a 27-year-old. In 2018, that same premium is expected to rise to $411.
Premiums are also increasing by 17 percent for Obamacare's lowest-cost plan. The report finds that fewer and fewer enrollees will have access to a plan that costs less than $200 a month.
"The percentage of current enrollees with access to a plan for $200 or less decreased from 16 percent for plan year 2017 to 6 percent to plan year 2018," the report states. "If enrollees were to stay within their current metal level, only 2 percent will have access to coverage with premiums of $200 or less for plan year 2018."
Taxpayers are also expected to see higher costs as premium subsidies have grown along with premium increases. In plan year 2014 when Obamacare coverage began, the average advance premium tax credit totaled $259. This year, that tax credit increased to $382, and it is projected to grow by 45 percent to $555 in the 2018 plan year.
While enrollees and taxpayers are seeing higher costs, health insurer participation and plan choices are on the decline. The report finds there will only be 132 health insurers participating next year, a decline of 21 percent from the 167 insurers participating in 2017.
There are eight states—Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming—that will only have one health insurer participating in the entire state. In 2016, only 2 percent of Obamacare enrollees had one choice on the exchange. Next year, that number is expected to increase to 29 percent.
"This data demonstrates just how rapidly Obamacare’s exchanges are deteriorating with skyrocketing premiums year after year, more than half of Americans with no more than two insurers to choose from, and the taxpayer burden exploding," said Caitlin Oakley, press secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
"There is an urgent and serious need to repeal this failed law and replace it with patient-centered solutions," she said.
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Health Insurance, Obamacare. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank You Ms Meyer and Free Beacon.
Monday, October 30, 2017
It's Failing: New HHS Report Continues Drumbeat of Dreadful ObamaCare News
townhall
Guy Benson
Posted: Oct 30, 2017 4:35 PM
[Ed; use the link for screen captures of graphics.]
Last week, we shared the results of an independent study predicting double-digit premium increases across all Obamacare coverage levels in 2018, including a 34 percent jump among "baseline" silver plans. We also highlighted a Politico review of the law's devastating impact on many consumers in Iowa, one of the states hit hardest by Obamacare's enduring and systemic failures. This week brings a fresh report from the Department of Health and Human Services, confirming the "Affordable" Care Act's continued downward spiral. Via the Washington Examiner's summary:
Health insurance premiums for the first Obamacare open enrollment under President Trump will be 37 percent higher than last year for mid-level plans sold on healthcare.gov, according to a new report by the Department of Health and Human Services...The latest report, prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, found that a 27-year-old who buys a mid-level plan, known as a silver plan, and does not receive a subsidy from the federal government will pay an average of $4,932 in premiums for 2018. In 2017, someone with that profile paid $3,600 in premiums for the year, and in 2016, they paid $2,904. During Obamacare's first year, in 2014, someone with that profile would have paid $2,616. Obamacare customers will also have fewer health insurers to buy coverage from, which will also limit the doctors and hospitals that they can see under these plans. The report found that the percentage of customers who have more than two options is shrinking.
Conservative policy analyst Phil Kerpen runs through additional data points from the study:
Nearly one-third of all Obamacare consumers will be faced with one provider "choice" next year, with more than half having just one or two possible options. The total number of state-level plan issuers across the country has been slashed by more than 100 since 2015. And average rates -- which more than doubled on the federal exchange between 2013 and 2017 -- keep heading up. And that doesn't even account for prohibitively expensive out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles. On a county-by-county basis, the receding 2018 coverage map looks like this:
The Trump administration is not setting a sign-up goal for the upcoming open enrollment period, drawing new complaints of "sabotage." But critics would be wise to recall how the Obama administration consistently fell embarrassingly short of their own targets. The Congressional Budget Office's 2010 projections anticipated roughly 23 million Americans would be signed up on the Obamacare exchanges by 2018. This year's actual number: Less than 10 million. And as for claims that the Trump White House is putting its thumb on the scale to make these numbers look as bad as possible, don't forget that the final Obama-era HHS report was packed with dreadful news about the law's trajectory -- and that was before Trump started "undermining" the law by canceling illegal CSR payments and the like. In other words, even when Obamacare was being propped up by a Democratic administration, and most people expected the next Democratic administration would do the same, its impacts on affordability and consumer choice (both hallmarks of Democrats' sales pitch) were negative and deteriorating. I'll leave you with this number, which comes from a D+12 poll, and despite widespread opposition to various Republican 'repeal and replace' bills:
Thank You Mr Benson and Townhall.
Guy Benson
Posted: Oct 30, 2017 4:35 PM
[Ed; use the link for screen captures of graphics.]
Last week, we shared the results of an independent study predicting double-digit premium increases across all Obamacare coverage levels in 2018, including a 34 percent jump among "baseline" silver plans. We also highlighted a Politico review of the law's devastating impact on many consumers in Iowa, one of the states hit hardest by Obamacare's enduring and systemic failures. This week brings a fresh report from the Department of Health and Human Services, confirming the "Affordable" Care Act's continued downward spiral. Via the Washington Examiner's summary:
Health insurance premiums for the first Obamacare open enrollment under President Trump will be 37 percent higher than last year for mid-level plans sold on healthcare.gov, according to a new report by the Department of Health and Human Services...The latest report, prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, found that a 27-year-old who buys a mid-level plan, known as a silver plan, and does not receive a subsidy from the federal government will pay an average of $4,932 in premiums for 2018. In 2017, someone with that profile paid $3,600 in premiums for the year, and in 2016, they paid $2,904. During Obamacare's first year, in 2014, someone with that profile would have paid $2,616. Obamacare customers will also have fewer health insurers to buy coverage from, which will also limit the doctors and hospitals that they can see under these plans. The report found that the percentage of customers who have more than two options is shrinking.
Conservative policy analyst Phil Kerpen runs through additional data points from the study:
Nearly one-third of all Obamacare consumers will be faced with one provider "choice" next year, with more than half having just one or two possible options. The total number of state-level plan issuers across the country has been slashed by more than 100 since 2015. And average rates -- which more than doubled on the federal exchange between 2013 and 2017 -- keep heading up. And that doesn't even account for prohibitively expensive out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles. On a county-by-county basis, the receding 2018 coverage map looks like this:
The Trump administration is not setting a sign-up goal for the upcoming open enrollment period, drawing new complaints of "sabotage." But critics would be wise to recall how the Obama administration consistently fell embarrassingly short of their own targets. The Congressional Budget Office's 2010 projections anticipated roughly 23 million Americans would be signed up on the Obamacare exchanges by 2018. This year's actual number: Less than 10 million. And as for claims that the Trump White House is putting its thumb on the scale to make these numbers look as bad as possible, don't forget that the final Obama-era HHS report was packed with dreadful news about the law's trajectory -- and that was before Trump started "undermining" the law by canceling illegal CSR payments and the like. In other words, even when Obamacare was being propped up by a Democratic administration, and most people expected the next Democratic administration would do the same, its impacts on affordability and consumer choice (both hallmarks of Democrats' sales pitch) were negative and deteriorating. I'll leave you with this number, which comes from a D+12 poll, and despite widespread opposition to various Republican 'repeal and replace' bills:
Thank You Mr Benson and Townhall.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
ObamaCare Silver Plan Premiums Up An Average of 34%
hotair
John Sexton
9:21 pm on October 26, 2017
Yesterday Avalere Health published a report on premium increases for 2018 and came up with an average 34% increase for silver plans, which are by far the most popular. A significant contributor to that increase (~14%) is President Trump’s decision to cut off cost-sharing payments to insurers. If not for that factor the rate increase would likely be closer to 20 percent.
“Plans are raising premiums in 2018 to account for market uncertainty and the federal government’s failure to pay for cost-sharing reductions,” said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere. “These premium increases may allow insurers to remain in the market and enrollees in all regions to have access to coverage.”
Avalere produced this graph showing average premiums over the past three years plus the average price for next year broken down by plan type (bronze through platinum):
The company also predicts that prices on silver plans could go up beyond 34% if insurers who proposed rates prior to the CSR cut off are given a second chance:
States where health plans were not permitted to provide an amended or second set of rates assuming the loss of CSRs may permit health plans to refile their rates prior to 2018 open enrollment, due to the elimination of the CSR payments. In states where this occurs, it is expected that the newly updated rates will be substantially higher for the 2018 plan year.
That’s exactly what is going to happen in Maryland where insurers are being given a chance to revise their rates. From the Washington Post:
Maryland regulators have given two insurance carriers permission to substantially raise monthly premiums on some plans in a direct response to a Trump administration decision to halt certain subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
The steep increases will raise costs by as much as 76 percent over last year for silver-level individual plans on the state exchange and come atop already approved increases for 2018.
As usual, there are all sorts of caveats here. For one, most of the people buying these plans on the exchange get subsidies which means they won’t see much of this increase (the taxpayers will). The people who will be hit hard by this are those, mostly buying off the exchange, who make too much to receive subsidies. As you can see in that chart above, the average price of a silver plan premium could jump almost $200 a month next year.
The real problem, which is mentioned in a list of factors by Avalere, is that enrollment was down this year and will probably be down again, perhaps sharply, next year. That will lead to more insurers considering dropping out of the markets. About a quarter of all counties next year are already down to one insurer and those are the counties where insurers are most likely to want to drop out. That and the shrinking size of the risk pool could lead to another round of steep premium hikes next year.
Tags: cost-sharing insurers ObamaCare Obamacare exchange premiums
Thank You Mr Sexton and Hot Air.
John Sexton
9:21 pm on October 26, 2017
Yesterday Avalere Health published a report on premium increases for 2018 and came up with an average 34% increase for silver plans, which are by far the most popular. A significant contributor to that increase (~14%) is President Trump’s decision to cut off cost-sharing payments to insurers. If not for that factor the rate increase would likely be closer to 20 percent.
“Plans are raising premiums in 2018 to account for market uncertainty and the federal government’s failure to pay for cost-sharing reductions,” said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere. “These premium increases may allow insurers to remain in the market and enrollees in all regions to have access to coverage.”
Avalere produced this graph showing average premiums over the past three years plus the average price for next year broken down by plan type (bronze through platinum):
The company also predicts that prices on silver plans could go up beyond 34% if insurers who proposed rates prior to the CSR cut off are given a second chance:
States where health plans were not permitted to provide an amended or second set of rates assuming the loss of CSRs may permit health plans to refile their rates prior to 2018 open enrollment, due to the elimination of the CSR payments. In states where this occurs, it is expected that the newly updated rates will be substantially higher for the 2018 plan year.
That’s exactly what is going to happen in Maryland where insurers are being given a chance to revise their rates. From the Washington Post:
Maryland regulators have given two insurance carriers permission to substantially raise monthly premiums on some plans in a direct response to a Trump administration decision to halt certain subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
The steep increases will raise costs by as much as 76 percent over last year for silver-level individual plans on the state exchange and come atop already approved increases for 2018.
As usual, there are all sorts of caveats here. For one, most of the people buying these plans on the exchange get subsidies which means they won’t see much of this increase (the taxpayers will). The people who will be hit hard by this are those, mostly buying off the exchange, who make too much to receive subsidies. As you can see in that chart above, the average price of a silver plan premium could jump almost $200 a month next year.
The real problem, which is mentioned in a list of factors by Avalere, is that enrollment was down this year and will probably be down again, perhaps sharply, next year. That will lead to more insurers considering dropping out of the markets. About a quarter of all counties next year are already down to one insurer and those are the counties where insurers are most likely to want to drop out. That and the shrinking size of the risk pool could lead to another round of steep premium hikes next year.
Tags: cost-sharing insurers ObamaCare Obamacare exchange premiums
Thank You Mr Sexton and Hot Air.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Ending Obamacare Subsidies Will Lower Premiums, Healthcare Experts Say
dailycaller
After President Donald Trump recently halted Obamacare subsidies for poor and low-income Americans, many in the media reported that the action will result in more expensive health insurance premiums for millions of consumers who are already struggling to make ends meet. This characterization, however, fails to provide key context that could actually mean lower premiums for Americans with individual health insurance plans.
According to a recent study from the Freelancers Union and Upwork, a record 36 percent of Americans now work as freelancers, meaning that they are not eligible for employer-sponsored health insurance plans offering much lower premiums for consumers. This means that roughly 57.3 million Americans — minus the number of those covered under health insurance plans offered by their spouse’s employer-sponsored plans — are required under the Affordable Care Act to obtain individualized health insurance coverage or pay a penalty.
An estimated eight in ten consumers in the individual market are eligible for taxpayer-funded health insurance plan subsidies. Trump, however, recently halted billions of dollars in health insurance subsidies, because he said they only prop up insurers.
The administration also argues that the subsidies are illegal since the funds were never appropriated by Congress.
The move will not largely affect the eight in ten Americans who are eligible for the premium subsidies, since health insurers are still required to subsidize plans for low-income consumers even without taxpayer-assistance. Trump’s move will only affect the remaining two in ten Americans on the individual market who are not eligible for subsidies because they earn too much, CNN reports.
The move by the president prompted a number of health insurance companies to request substantial premium rate increases heading into 2018. The Maryland Insurance Administration, for example, approved 33-percent average rate increases for 2018.
The Washington Post directly tied Maryland’s health insurance rate increases to Trump halting taxpayer-funded subsidies.
ABC News claimed that “cutting them will likely further roil the already unstable insurance market.”
However, the Washington Post, ABC News, and others failed to mention that while health insurers will no longer receive billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies, those same 2 in 10 consumers facing increased rates will also have more health insurance coverage options, thanks to Trump signing an executive order allowing them to purchase their coverage across state lines.
This move, according to conservative healthcare policy experts, will actually result in lower premiums.
Heritage Foundation experts Marie Fishpaw and Edmund Haislmaier called the October 12 executive order “a step in the right direction, partly because it encourages more health insurance associations, according to Fishpaw and Haislmaier:
“Since the Affordable Care Act took full effect in 2014, premiums in the individual market have more than doubled. The average cumulative increase is 105 percent, equivalent to average annual increases of 19 percent. Family premiums have increased 140 percent,” Cannon wrote.
Cannon attributed the rise in premiums to Obamacare’s “hidden taxes,” which Trump’s recent executive order seeks to help consumers avoid by purchasing guaranteed renewable short-term health insurance plans that would not be subject to Obamacare’s onerous regulations.
According to Cannon:
“It would allow insurers to reintroduce innovative products, which Obamacare effectively outlawed, that would reduce premiums a further 80 percent(!),” Cannon added.
9:09 AM 10/26/2017
After President Donald Trump recently halted Obamacare subsidies for poor and low-income Americans, many in the media reported that the action will result in more expensive health insurance premiums for millions of consumers who are already struggling to make ends meet. This characterization, however, fails to provide key context that could actually mean lower premiums for Americans with individual health insurance plans.
According to a recent study from the Freelancers Union and Upwork, a record 36 percent of Americans now work as freelancers, meaning that they are not eligible for employer-sponsored health insurance plans offering much lower premiums for consumers. This means that roughly 57.3 million Americans — minus the number of those covered under health insurance plans offered by their spouse’s employer-sponsored plans — are required under the Affordable Care Act to obtain individualized health insurance coverage or pay a penalty.
An estimated eight in ten consumers in the individual market are eligible for taxpayer-funded health insurance plan subsidies. Trump, however, recently halted billions of dollars in health insurance subsidies, because he said they only prop up insurers.
The administration also argues that the subsidies are illegal since the funds were never appropriated by Congress.
The move will not largely affect the eight in ten Americans who are eligible for the premium subsidies, since health insurers are still required to subsidize plans for low-income consumers even without taxpayer-assistance. Trump’s move will only affect the remaining two in ten Americans on the individual market who are not eligible for subsidies because they earn too much, CNN reports.
The move by the president prompted a number of health insurance companies to request substantial premium rate increases heading into 2018. The Maryland Insurance Administration, for example, approved 33-percent average rate increases for 2018.
The Washington Post directly tied Maryland’s health insurance rate increases to Trump halting taxpayer-funded subsidies.
ABC News claimed that “cutting them will likely further roil the already unstable insurance market.”
However, the Washington Post, ABC News, and others failed to mention that while health insurers will no longer receive billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies, those same 2 in 10 consumers facing increased rates will also have more health insurance coverage options, thanks to Trump signing an executive order allowing them to purchase their coverage across state lines.
This move, according to conservative healthcare policy experts, will actually result in lower premiums.
Heritage Foundation experts Marie Fishpaw and Edmund Haislmaier called the October 12 executive order “a step in the right direction, partly because it encourages more health insurance associations, according to Fishpaw and Haislmaier:
A change of this sort could allow small businesses and the self-employed to escape Obamacare’s costly benefit mandates and access new options run by associations that they have a stake in.
It could also help more small employers offer coverage to their workers. Newly enrolled individuals could save money—up to 20 to 50 percent on the cost of their insurance—by taking advantage of the tax break for employer-provided health insurance.Cato Institute healthcare policy expert Michael Cannon said Trump’s executive order “could save millions from ObamaCare.”
“Since the Affordable Care Act took full effect in 2014, premiums in the individual market have more than doubled. The average cumulative increase is 105 percent, equivalent to average annual increases of 19 percent. Family premiums have increased 140 percent,” Cannon wrote.
Cannon attributed the rise in premiums to Obamacare’s “hidden taxes,” which Trump’s recent executive order seeks to help consumers avoid by purchasing guaranteed renewable short-term health insurance plans that would not be subject to Obamacare’s onerous regulations.
According to Cannon:
Consumers could avoid Obamacare’s hidden taxes and low-quality coverage by purchasing relatively secure insurance that protects them against the long-term financial cost of illness, and that protects them against their premiums rising if they get sick. Premiums would be far lower than they are in the Exchanges. If the administration gets the regulations right, this change could even allow innovations that reduce the cost of health-insurance protection by a further 80 percent.“Absent Obamacare’s health-insurance regulations, premiums would fall for the vast majority of exchange enrollees by an estimated 45-68 percent, ” Cannon wrote in a July column published by The Hill.
“It would allow insurers to reintroduce innovative products, which Obamacare effectively outlawed, that would reduce premiums a further 80 percent(!),” Cannon added.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Health Insurers In Pennsylvania Request Average Premium Rate Hikes of 31%
freebeacon
BY: Ali Meyer
October 18, 2017 5:00 am
Obamacare plan premiums may increase an average of 30.6 percent in Pennsylvania next year due to health care insurers rate hike requests, according to the state's acting insurance commissioner.
There are five health insurers that are participating in the marketplace in 2018, some of whom were approved for even higher rates. For example, Capital Advantage Assurance Company, which participates on the exchanges in the individual market in Pennsylvania, was approved a rate increase of 49.2 percent. UPMC Health Options was approved a rate increase of 41.15 percent, Geisinger Health Plan was approved a rate hike of 31.28 percent, QCC Insurance Company was approved a rate hike of 28.24 percent, and Highmark Inc. was approved a rate increase of 25.27 percent.
"Rates reflect estimates of future costs, including medical and prescription drug costs and administrative expenses, and are based on historical data and forecasts of trends in the upcoming year," the Pennsylvania Insurance Department explains. "The Department considers these factors, as well as factors such as the insurer's revenues, actual and projected profits, past rate changes, and the effect the change will have on Pennsylvania consumers."
According to the state's acting insurance commissioner, the rates were originally projected to increase by only 7.6 percent.
"It is with great regret that I must announce approved rates that are substantially higher than what companies initially requested," said Commissioner Jessica Altman. "Due to President Trump's refusal to make cost-sharing reduction payments for 2018 and Congress's inaction to appropriate funds, it is the reality that state regulators must face and the reason rate increases will be higher than they should be across the country."
[Ed; How about putting the blame where it belongs instead of dropping it on Trump for his even Starting to clean up Pelosi's horror?]
The commissioner also noted that those individuals who do not qualify for subsidies should shop off of the exchanges.
"The department worked with each of Pennsylvania's five marketplace health insurers to ensure they would offer an off-exchange only option that is not impacted by the disproportionate rate increases for on-exchange silver plans," the commissioner's office said.
These rate hikes come after the Obama administration announced a year ago that premiums for 2017 would rise by double-digits. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, rate increases are a result of the increasing number of insurers experiencing losses on the exchanges.
"Nationwide, average Marketplace premiums for 2017 are increasing more than they have in the past two years," the Obama administration said. "For the median HealthCare.gov consumer, the benchmark second-lowest silver plan premium is increasing by 16 percent this year, before taking into account the effects of financial assistance."
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Health Care, Health Insurance, Pennsylvania. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank You Ms Meyer and Free Beacon.
BY: Ali Meyer
October 18, 2017 5:00 am
Obamacare plan premiums may increase an average of 30.6 percent in Pennsylvania next year due to health care insurers rate hike requests, according to the state's acting insurance commissioner.
There are five health insurers that are participating in the marketplace in 2018, some of whom were approved for even higher rates. For example, Capital Advantage Assurance Company, which participates on the exchanges in the individual market in Pennsylvania, was approved a rate increase of 49.2 percent. UPMC Health Options was approved a rate increase of 41.15 percent, Geisinger Health Plan was approved a rate hike of 31.28 percent, QCC Insurance Company was approved a rate hike of 28.24 percent, and Highmark Inc. was approved a rate increase of 25.27 percent.
"Rates reflect estimates of future costs, including medical and prescription drug costs and administrative expenses, and are based on historical data and forecasts of trends in the upcoming year," the Pennsylvania Insurance Department explains. "The Department considers these factors, as well as factors such as the insurer's revenues, actual and projected profits, past rate changes, and the effect the change will have on Pennsylvania consumers."
According to the state's acting insurance commissioner, the rates were originally projected to increase by only 7.6 percent.
"It is with great regret that I must announce approved rates that are substantially higher than what companies initially requested," said Commissioner Jessica Altman. "Due to President Trump's refusal to make cost-sharing reduction payments for 2018 and Congress's inaction to appropriate funds, it is the reality that state regulators must face and the reason rate increases will be higher than they should be across the country."
[Ed; How about putting the blame where it belongs instead of dropping it on Trump for his even Starting to clean up Pelosi's horror?]
The commissioner also noted that those individuals who do not qualify for subsidies should shop off of the exchanges.
"The department worked with each of Pennsylvania's five marketplace health insurers to ensure they would offer an off-exchange only option that is not impacted by the disproportionate rate increases for on-exchange silver plans," the commissioner's office said.
These rate hikes come after the Obama administration announced a year ago that premiums for 2017 would rise by double-digits. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, rate increases are a result of the increasing number of insurers experiencing losses on the exchanges.
"Nationwide, average Marketplace premiums for 2017 are increasing more than they have in the past two years," the Obama administration said. "For the median HealthCare.gov consumer, the benchmark second-lowest silver plan premium is increasing by 16 percent this year, before taking into account the effects of financial assistance."
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Health Care, Health Insurance, Pennsylvania. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank You Ms Meyer and Free Beacon.
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Here's How Trump Has Silenty Gutted Obama's (Obamacare) Legacy
Hang on rate payers. Despite that Union of foot dragging K Street Pimps called Congress, it's being dealt with.
Daily Caller
Robert Donachie, Capitol Hill and Health Care Reporter
11:30 AM 10/13/2017
President Donald Trump has surgically dismantled Obamacare over the course of his first year in office, largely under the noses of the American public, Democrats and members of his party that have spent the last nine months trying to upend the American health care system.
Over the course of his first nine months in office, he rolled back funding for a program intended to help individuals navigate the insurance marketplace, signed an executive order to allow for groups to purchase insurance across state lines and stopped federal funding for Obamacare subsidies.
Taken in tandem, it appears the administration is working to overhaul the American health care system without the help of Congress, a body that has failed a handful of times to repeal and replace Obamacare during the first months of Trump’s presidency.
Each of these actions has a significant impact on the viability of the current health care system.
Obamacare Subsidies
The Trump administration announced late Thursday evening that it will no longer fund a crucial feature of Obamacare that helps low-income Americans purchase health insurance on the Affordable Care Act state exchanges, known as cost-sharing reductions.
“The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system,” the White House said in a statement. “Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.”
Under the leadership of former Speaker John Boehner, the House filed suit against the Obama administration in 2014, claiming it was illegally reimbursing marketplace insurers for CSRs.
Obamacare subsidies were instituted to help low and moderate income individuals who participate in the exchanges. To make consumers put more “skin in the game,” Obamacare effectively raised deductibles to levels that are tough for many Americans to meet without some financial support. CSRs were put in place to help compensate insurance companies for coinsurance, co-pays and deductibles that low-income consumers could not otherwise pay out on their own.
Boehner, along with House leadership, felt that CSRs required an annual appropriation approved by Congress. The House argued that because Congress had never explicitly appropriated the funds for those payments, the administration’s actions were unconstitutional. After nearly two years of deliberation, Senior Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Rosemary M. Collyer concluded the House’s claim had legal standing and allowed the case move forward on May 12, 2016.
Over the course of the past 16 months, the Obama and Trump administrations have kicked the court hearing back. For those that side with Republicans, a troubling result of the appeal and numerous delays is that CSRs are still funded as they were when the Obama administration first appealed. Trump’s move Thursday essentially ends the debate, unless Congress chooses to act.
One of the glaring problems with abruptly stopping CSR payments is that it will likely lead to skyrocketing premiums for Obamacare enrollees. Roughly half of the consumers who purchase health insurance through Obamacare qualify for cost-sharing reductions
Consumers are already facing double-digit premiums under Obamacare, but stopping the subsidies for insurance companies means the costs that insurers are not getting covered from the government will get transferred to the consumer.
When insurance providers signaled they would drop out of the Obamacare market altogether in 2017, one of their primary concerns was whether or not Trump would continue paying out these subsidies.
The federal government was slated to pay out around $7 billion in CSRs in 2017. Obamacare consumers saw their out-of-pocket costs lower by over $1,000 through these subsidies.
Congress could still act on the 2014 lawsuit and stymie Trump’s move. If they do not, Obamacare customers are likely to see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs soar in the future.
Obamacare Navigator Funding
The Trump administration has argued that many of the Obamacare programs are merely a superluous use of time and resources, including the navigator program. As such, the administration announced in September that it would cut some of the navigator program’s funding by as much as 90 percent.
Obamacare navigators are individuals that help consumers and businesses seek and obtain health insurance plans that meet their specific needs. They also provide outreach and educational assistance surrounding the health care marketplace.
Over 70 percent of regional programs and 55 percent of statewide navigators anticipate rolling back programs in rural areas because of the administration’s funding cuts, Kaiser Family Foundation reports. The overwhelming majority, or 89 percent, of navigators expect having to fire staff because of the cuts.
Cuts to navigators are important in that the Obamacare marketplace can be difficult to navigate, even for an experienced consumer.
The majority of navigators, despite the cuts, plan on participating in the market in 2018.
Executive Order
Trump signed an executive order Thursday that charged a number of federal agencies with finding ways to expand access to health insurance plans that are outside of Obamacare regulations. The order relaxes the rules and regulations surrounding association health plans — groups of small businesses (and possibly individuals) that join together to purchase insurance. The order would also allow these groups to purchase insurance across state lines.
“With these actions … We are moving toward lower costs and more options in the health care market, and taking crucial steps toward saving the American people from the nightmare of Obamacare,” the president said Thursday.
“This will direct [agencies] to take action to increase competition, increase choice, and increase access to lower-cost, high-quality health-care options,” Trump added. “This will cost the United States virtually nothing, and people will have great, great health care.”
One of the main criticisms this order will face is that it will create a bifurcated insurance marketplace, where healthy people and small business purchase health insurance through association plans and older, sicker individuals purchase from the Obamacare state exchanges. One group is comprised of healthy, low-risk people and they have low premiums, while the Obamacare marketplace is left with a lot of sick folks and thus charge higher premiums.
Follow Robert on Twitter Send tips to robert@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
Thank You Mr. Donachie, the DC, and above all, President Trump.
Daily Caller
Robert Donachie, Capitol Hill and Health Care Reporter
11:30 AM 10/13/2017
President Donald Trump has surgically dismantled Obamacare over the course of his first year in office, largely under the noses of the American public, Democrats and members of his party that have spent the last nine months trying to upend the American health care system.
Over the course of his first nine months in office, he rolled back funding for a program intended to help individuals navigate the insurance marketplace, signed an executive order to allow for groups to purchase insurance across state lines and stopped federal funding for Obamacare subsidies.
Taken in tandem, it appears the administration is working to overhaul the American health care system without the help of Congress, a body that has failed a handful of times to repeal and replace Obamacare during the first months of Trump’s presidency.
Each of these actions has a significant impact on the viability of the current health care system.
Obamacare Subsidies
The Trump administration announced late Thursday evening that it will no longer fund a crucial feature of Obamacare that helps low-income Americans purchase health insurance on the Affordable Care Act state exchanges, known as cost-sharing reductions.
“The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system,” the White House said in a statement. “Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.”
Under the leadership of former Speaker John Boehner, the House filed suit against the Obama administration in 2014, claiming it was illegally reimbursing marketplace insurers for CSRs.
Obamacare subsidies were instituted to help low and moderate income individuals who participate in the exchanges. To make consumers put more “skin in the game,” Obamacare effectively raised deductibles to levels that are tough for many Americans to meet without some financial support. CSRs were put in place to help compensate insurance companies for coinsurance, co-pays and deductibles that low-income consumers could not otherwise pay out on their own.
Boehner, along with House leadership, felt that CSRs required an annual appropriation approved by Congress. The House argued that because Congress had never explicitly appropriated the funds for those payments, the administration’s actions were unconstitutional. After nearly two years of deliberation, Senior Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Rosemary M. Collyer concluded the House’s claim had legal standing and allowed the case move forward on May 12, 2016.
Over the course of the past 16 months, the Obama and Trump administrations have kicked the court hearing back. For those that side with Republicans, a troubling result of the appeal and numerous delays is that CSRs are still funded as they were when the Obama administration first appealed. Trump’s move Thursday essentially ends the debate, unless Congress chooses to act.
One of the glaring problems with abruptly stopping CSR payments is that it will likely lead to skyrocketing premiums for Obamacare enrollees. Roughly half of the consumers who purchase health insurance through Obamacare qualify for cost-sharing reductions
Consumers are already facing double-digit premiums under Obamacare, but stopping the subsidies for insurance companies means the costs that insurers are not getting covered from the government will get transferred to the consumer.
When insurance providers signaled they would drop out of the Obamacare market altogether in 2017, one of their primary concerns was whether or not Trump would continue paying out these subsidies.
The federal government was slated to pay out around $7 billion in CSRs in 2017. Obamacare consumers saw their out-of-pocket costs lower by over $1,000 through these subsidies.
Congress could still act on the 2014 lawsuit and stymie Trump’s move. If they do not, Obamacare customers are likely to see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs soar in the future.
Obamacare Navigator Funding
The Trump administration has argued that many of the Obamacare programs are merely a superluous use of time and resources, including the navigator program. As such, the administration announced in September that it would cut some of the navigator program’s funding by as much as 90 percent.
Obamacare navigators are individuals that help consumers and businesses seek and obtain health insurance plans that meet their specific needs. They also provide outreach and educational assistance surrounding the health care marketplace.
Over 70 percent of regional programs and 55 percent of statewide navigators anticipate rolling back programs in rural areas because of the administration’s funding cuts, Kaiser Family Foundation reports. The overwhelming majority, or 89 percent, of navigators expect having to fire staff because of the cuts.
Cuts to navigators are important in that the Obamacare marketplace can be difficult to navigate, even for an experienced consumer.
The majority of navigators, despite the cuts, plan on participating in the market in 2018.
Executive Order
Trump signed an executive order Thursday that charged a number of federal agencies with finding ways to expand access to health insurance plans that are outside of Obamacare regulations. The order relaxes the rules and regulations surrounding association health plans — groups of small businesses (and possibly individuals) that join together to purchase insurance. The order would also allow these groups to purchase insurance across state lines.
“With these actions … We are moving toward lower costs and more options in the health care market, and taking crucial steps toward saving the American people from the nightmare of Obamacare,” the president said Thursday.
“This will direct [agencies] to take action to increase competition, increase choice, and increase access to lower-cost, high-quality health-care options,” Trump added. “This will cost the United States virtually nothing, and people will have great, great health care.”
One of the main criticisms this order will face is that it will create a bifurcated insurance marketplace, where healthy people and small business purchase health insurance through association plans and older, sicker individuals purchase from the Obamacare state exchanges. One group is comprised of healthy, low-risk people and they have low premiums, while the Obamacare marketplace is left with a lot of sick folks and thus charge higher premiums.
Follow Robert on Twitter Send tips to robert@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
Thank You Mr. Donachie, the DC, and above all, President Trump.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
ObamaCare: Health Premiums Continue To Skyrocket While Congress Does Nothing
dailycaller
Robert DonachieCapitol Hill and Health Care Reporter
12:26 PM 10/04/2017
Health insurance providers are planning some double-digit increases in premiums for plans offered on the Obamacare state exchanges in 2018, a sign that the insurance marketplace woes are only getting worse.
Insurance premiums in states from Georgia to New York will increase dramatically in 2018, rising as high as 57 percent in some areas.
Georgia state Commissioner of Insurance Ralph Hudgens approved premium increases 57.5 percent, he told The New York Times. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation announced in late September that Obamacare compliant health insurance plan premiums will rise, on average, 47.5 percent starting Jan. 1, 2018. Similar plans in Florida are expected to rise roughly 14 percent.
Republicans recently failed to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, known as Graham-Cassidy. After two weeks of trying to get senators behind the bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky tabled it last week once it became certain the bill would not pass if put up for a vote.
Republican leadership is moving on to push tax reform, which the GOP believes has a shot at making its way through Congress. Only after taking a swipe at tax reform will Republicans consider touching health care legislation.
“What I would expect is that we take a clear shot at taxes. We’ll use the time to come up with a better process for health care,” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “We will have a debate worthy of a great country and when taxes are over early next year, which is what I envision, we’ll go back to repealing and replacing Obamacare.”
While the administration and Republicans focused their efforts on selling a tax bill to Democrats, members of their own party and voters, Americans are left with the backbreaking costs to obtain health insurance. There is no guarantee Congress will address the problem in the coming months.
GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington were considering putting forth a bill to shore up Obamacare state exchanges and bolster the individual insurance marketplace.
The was likely going to continue funding Obamacare subsidy payments called cost-sharing reductions (CSRs). CSRs help cover the cost of deductibles for low-income consumers on the exchanges, allow consumers to purchase catastrophic health care plans and for the expansion of state waivers. The waivers — commonly known as 1332 waivers — let states innovate implementation of Obamacare as long as the state meets basic Affordable Care Act protections.
The bill never materialized out of the Senate Health committee, but there are signs the proposal may make a resurgence in the coming months.
“Sen. Alexander briefed us just a little bit today on where they are. They are still discussing and they are reaching some conclusions. The question is whether or not when the present, if there is going to be sufficient support to move forward with something,” GOP Sen. John Thune of South Dokata told reporters Tuesday. “I don’t know the answer to that at this point.”
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia and GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio released a bill Tuesday that aims to make employer reporting requirement under Obamacare more efficient.
Follow Robert on Twitter Send tips to robert@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
Thank You Mr Donachie and DC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)