Friday, September 7, 2018

Colorado governor candidates see dangers in each other's health proposals

  • By: 
  •  
  • Updated 
  •  


    Health care ranks among the top issues in Colorado’s race for governor. But to hear the campaigns and their allies describe it, voters in November will be choosing between competing health “scare” policies.
    Both candidates say it’s a top priority to expand Coloradans’ access to health care and control costs. But Republican Walker Stapleton and his supporters warn that Democrat Jared Polis’ plans will impoverish the state and its residents, while the Polis camp argues that Coloradans will lose coverage and financial protections under Stapleton’s proposals.
    Nine years after a Democratic Congress — including five-term U.S. Rep. Polis — passed the Affordable Care Act, and a year after the Republican Congress failed to repeal it but managed to abolish its individual mandate for insurance coverage, the landmark legislation known as Obamacare remains a political hot potato.
    While the two candidates differ sharply on issues related to the ACA, from Colorado’s individual insurance exchange to expanded Medicaid coverage, both are also banking on getting waivers from the federal government to implement some of their more ambitious plans.
    According to a public opinion survey conducted this year by the University of Colorado’s American Politics Research Lab, Coloradans consider health care the most important national priority, and fully half of the state’s residents surveyed said they support a “single payer” health care system “in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes.”
    Asked before the June primary to name the issues that helped determine which gubernatorial candidate to support, unaffiliated voters said education was most important, followed by health care.
    Polling, however, also shows Republican voters aren’t nearly as concerned about health care as Democrats and unaffiliated voters are, and the two parties’ nominees have approached the topic differently on the campaign trail.
    Just after Polis picked his running mate, former state Rep. Dianne Primavera — a four-time cancer survivor and then-CEO of Susan G. Komen Colorado, a nonprofit that raises funds for breast-cancer programs — the Democratic ticket embarked on a tour of the Western Slope devoted to discussions about health care.
    Meanwhile, Stapleton’s running mate is state Rep. Lang Sias, an Arvada lawmaker who passed a bipartisan bill last session requiring more transparency on costs and customer rights from free-standing emergency rooms. He sits on the House Public Health Committee and Health Exchange Legislative Oversight Committee.
    But Stapleton introduced Sias, a former Navy “top gun” pilot, in front of a fighter jet at a Denver museum.
    “Health care is a human right,” Polis said in a 15-second ad that aired during the Democratic primary. “I supported ‘Medicare for All’ for more than a decade, because it will help Coloradans pay less for health care, and that’s who we should be fighting for.”
    Polis described how he would implement his policies as governor in opinion pieces published this year in the Aspen Times.
    “With the absence of leadership coming from Washington, we need to think outside the box and lead the charge ourselves to bring universal health coverage to Colorado,” he wrote in one.
    “I’m running for governor because it’s time for us to translate the core value that health care is a human right into public policy. It’s not only the right thing to do, but the most cost-effective way to reform health care in the long term.”
    Polis has outlined an array of approaches, including a proposal to band together with other Western states to establish a “universal, single-payer option,” as well as plans to attack the high cost of health care in rural Colorado, soaring prescription prices and the opioid epidemic.
    Stapleton, a two-term state treasurer, wants you to know one thing, for sure, about his health care plan: “My plan won’t bankrupt the state,” he said in a meeting room in Greenwood Village after opening a Republican campaign office on a recent Saturday afternoon.
    Stapleton has been short on specifics when it comes to his prescriptions for health care. A page devoted to health care issues appeared on his campaign website only in the last week. But his campaign and his supporters have pounded a steady drumbeat about Polis’ plan, calling it radical and pointing to a recent national study that found the federal government could spend $32 trillion over 10 years to implement a single-payer plan.
    “Tell Jared Polis we can’t afford his government takeover of health care,” says a pro-Stapleton ad from State Solutions, an arm of the Republican Governors Association.
    “Walker is committed to instituting reforms that will actually fix our health care system and bring about real relief to Coloradans that can’t afford the out-of-control costs of Obamacare,” Stapleton campaign spokesman Jerrod Dobkin said in a recent statement.
    Republicans have attempted to tie Polis to Amendment 69, a ballot measure he opposed, which would have established a single-payer health care system in Colorado but was defeated by voters nearly 4 to 1 in 2016. Stapleton co-chaired the opposition group to that proposal, called “ColoradoCare,” with former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter.
    Stapleton describes Polis’ plan as potentially more expensive to taxpayers than the projected $25 billion cost for the failed ColoradoCare proposal.
    “He’s promising universal coverage to people,” Stapleton told Colorado Politics. “It’s responsible, if you’re making that promise, to explain to people how you plan to pay for it.”
    It’s important to note there’s a distinction between universal coverage — something nearly every industrialized country except the United States guarantees its residents — and a single-payer system, like the “Medicare for All” legislation Polis is sponsoring in Congress. While Polis supports both, his campaign points out that there are plenty of ways to approach universal coverage for Coloradans without implementing a single-payer system at the state or federal level.
    “If we don’t set a goal, it’s impossible to get to where we want to go,” Polis is known for saying — and his campaign maintains that his push for universal coverage could develop in different ways but will have to lower costs in order to move ahead.
    Here’s how Polis says his proposed multistate health consortium could work: Once in office, Polis plans to meet with governors from Western states — possibly including Washington, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and New Mexico — and develop a framework for how they could provide health care at a lower cost by expanding the risk pool to include all their residents, as well as increase purchasing power for medicine and other services.
    The states might also come up with other programs like reinsurance for rural areas, expanded mobile health clinics, fixed-price reimbursement to Medicaid providers, and common consumer rules and transparency requirements for prescription drugs.
    After what could be a couple of years to put together the plan, the states would submit waiver applications under Obamacare to the federal government, taking advantage of flexibility built into the law.
    Although it could take years to put in place, the plan could result in a regional single-payer system, or it could turn into the kind of robust public option that Polis and other Democrats have been lobbying for, bringing more competition to the health insurance market while bringing down costs for participants.
    In the meantime, Polis is contemplating a legislative agenda that includes encouraging more physical activity among schoolchildren, allowing municipalities to raise their tobacco taxes, implementing paid family and medical leave policies, and permanently funding the Long-Acting Reversible Contraception program, which significantly reduced teen pregnancy and abortion rates as a pilot program.
    Along with encouraging broadband development to make some medical technologies more available throughout the state, Polis is proposing a range of solutions to bring more affordable health care to rural and mountain areas, where it’s as expensive and scarce as anywhere in the country.
    “I’ve been calling on Colorado for years to redefine its geographic rating system to reduce the expenses facing mountain area families, and I’m prepared to solve this issue as governor,” he said.
    Stapleton’s health care plan is built from a blueprint of if’s:
    • If the Legislature would support major reforms, meaning if both chambers have a Republican majority.
    • If Republicans in Washington turn over Obamacare to the states.
    • If Colorado’s health exchange proves otherwise unworkable.
    • If federal block grants, vouchers and waivers allow the governor to unilaterally dictate care for the medically needy.
    • If he can find private partners to fill the gaps at a better price than the way care is delivered now.
    • If, politically, he can get away with turning away Medicaid recipients at emergency rooms, instead directing them to community clinics that could provide the service more cheaply.
    Stapleton calls his plan a “managed model” for Medicaid, which provides care for more than 1.3 million Coloradans.
    “It means actively managing what is going on with the expansion of Medicaid so we can deliver on the promises we’ve made, so we don’t wind up with 64 counties with one choice of health care (insurance) provider seeing double-digit increases, and people are paying more for their insurance than they are their mortgages,” he said.
    Although he said in earlier interviews that he wants to reduce the number of Coloradans on Medicaid, Stapleton told Colorado Politics that he isn’t looking to kick off people who got Medicaid coverage during the Obamacare expansion — about 400,000 people.
    A July report on the expansion showed Denver County added 72,947 people to Medicaid, and El Paso County was next, with an additional 63,294 recipients. That helped drop the state’s uninsured rate from 15.8 percent in 2011 to 6.5 percent in 2017, according to the same report from the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.
    Medicaid is a $10 billion enterprise in Colorado that is critical to public health and the health care industry, the way Democrats engineered it under Obamacare. Republicans have tried to deconstruct it through court cases, the tax code and President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

    Thursday, August 23, 2018

    Open Enrollment Begins On November 1st Until January 15th Colorado 2018

    From Connect for Health 08/23/2018

    Open Enrollment Begins on November 1st.
    Students are headed back to school and summer is winding down. The coming of autumn is a reminder to review your 2018 health insurance plan in anticipation of Open Enrollment 2019. This year, Open Enrollment will begin on November 1, 2018 and conclude on January 15, 2019.

    The Division of Insurance is reviewing plans and pricing now. Preliminary pricing looks good—on average a 5.94% increase—across all individual plans offered in 2019. We will keep you updated on the final plan pricing as soon as the Division of Insurance completes its review. That’s why it is critical that we have your current information – see below. We do know that all seven of our insurance companies will be back in the Marketplace for 2019, ensuring every county will have at least one carrier next year. We also know that Premium Tax Credits and Cost Sharing Reductions will also still be available in 2019 for those Coloradans who qualify.


    Saturday, July 14, 2018

    Division of Insurance Releases Preliminary 2019 Health Insurance Information


    Division of Insurance releases preliminary 2019 health insurance information

    Final approval of plans expected late summer / early fall.

    DENVER (July 13, 2018) – The Colorado Division of Insurance, part of the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA), today released preliminary information for proposed health plans and premiums for 2019 for individuals and small groups. Colorado consumers can file formal comments on these plans through August 3.
    2018 Companies Return for 2019
    The same seven companies that offered on-exchange, individual plans are returning for 2019 - Anthem (as HMO Colorado), Bright Health, Cigna Health and Life, Denver Health Medical Plans, Friday Health Plans, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado and Rocky Mountain HMO. And like in past years, this means that all counties in Colorado will have at least one on-exchange company selling individual health plans.
    “I’m very pleased to see that we kept the same seven companies selling on-exchange plans,” said Interim Insurance Commissioner Michael Conway. “Last year we worked hard to keep them in Colorado and I think that work is reflected in their decisions for 2019.”
    Smallest Increase in Years
    For 2019 individual plans, the average premium increase request is 5.94 percent across all companies and metal levels. In the small group market, the average premium increase request is 7.15 percent. Remember, these are averages across all plans from all companies, across all areas of the state where a company offers plans, for all ages. These averages are not representative of how one individual’s premium could change.
    Looking closer, the requested average premium increase for individual gold plans is 6.85 percent, and is 12.3 percent for silver plans. For bronze plans, the requested average premium increase is 0.9 percent.
    In addition, for the first time in years, an insurance company is requesting a rate decrease for individual market plans for 2019. In fact, both companies under the Anthem umbrella, HMO Colorado and Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, requested average decreases:  -0.44 percent for HMO Colorado, and -2.64 percent for Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service.
    “Last year we worked to keep the companies participating in Colorado in the individual market,” continued Commissioner Conway. “Our efforts this year have concentrated on maintaining and furthering the stability we secured last year. Moving forward, we will be doubling down on our focus to address and attack the ever-increasing healthcare costs that drive premiums and push coverage out of reach for many. For too long Colorado consumers have been forced into the uncomfortable and oftentimes impossible position of paying for ever increasing healthcare costs.”
    Challenges Continue
    As in past years, challenges continue. Just last week, the Trump administration decided to freeze a key ACA program designed to discourage insurers from favoring healthy people over less healthy ones.
    “Decisions at the federal level continue to make life interesting,” said Commissioner Conway. “But as we have in the past, we will find a solution to this most recent announcement. To that end, just this morning, I informed the insurance carriers that we will require that they account for their respective risk adjustment receivables or payables as they are reflected in the July 9, 2018 federal report. I will take any subsequent steps that are necessary to protect Coloradans and to maintain market stability.”
    The Rate Review Process
    The Division of Insurance will spend the summer reviewing these plans to make sure the requested premiums are neither too high nor too low, and ensuring that the plans comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and state laws.
    • The Division of Insurance does not set insurance premiums, but will review what the companies submitted to determine if the requested increases or decreases are justified.
    • The Division of Insurance checks to make sure the premiums are sufficient for the company to continue to pay its members’ claims.
    • The Division of Insurance verifies whether the plans meet the metal tier coverage levels:  bronze (an average of about 60 percent of medical expenses paid by the plan), silver (70 percent), gold (80 percent) and platinum (90 percent).  
    • The Division of Insurance also reviews the benefits and the plans’ networks of healthcare providers to make sure that they meet state and federal requirements.   
    • The Division will release the final approved plans and premiums for 2019 in late summer / early fall, along with summary information and analysis.
    Preliminary 2019 Information
    The information below on the number of plans and carriers and the requested premium changes for 2019 is preliminary. The information only reflects what the companies have requested, not the final approved plans for 2019. Any requested premium has to be justified by the insurance companies.
    For 2019, a total of 16 insurance companies plan to offer 808 individual and small group plans in Colorado. The average requested premium change for individual plans across all companies is a 5.94 percent increase, while in the small group market, the average requested change across all companies is a 7.15 percent increase.

    After the Division releases the final, approved plans and premiums for 2019 in late summer / early fall, it will host a public meeting to discuss health insurance for the coming year. The date and location for this forum will be determined later this summer.

    Tuesday, July 10, 2018

    Trump's latest move could push Obamacare premiums higher

    Updated 7:48 AM ET, Tue July 10, 2018



    That is because the federal government won't distribute $10.4 billion it was expected to give insurers this fall under the Affordable Care Act's risk adjustment program. The administration said Saturday that it would temporarily suspend the payments because a federal judge earlier this year ruled the program's formula was flawed.
    Insurers rely on the funding, which serves as a backstop for those who wind up with a high share of costly enrollees. Under the risk adjustment program, insurers with healthier policyholders contribute money, which is then divvied up among carriers with sicker ones. It's the only remaining risk mitigation program in Obamacare. The other two, which were designed to last only three years, ended after 2016.
    The administration's latest effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act comes at a particularly sensitive time for insurers. They are now deciding which exchanges they will participate in next year and what premiums they'll charge. Having a risk adjustment program factors into these calculations.

    Thursday, June 21, 2018

    Silver Loading Impact on the Affordable Care Act

    Is silver-loading the silver bullet? Actuaries wary of long-term impact of CSR cutoff

    Insurers dealing with the death of the Affordable Care Act's cost-sharing reduction payments may hit a stumbling block: the law's method for dealing with risk adjustment.

    The calculation is supposed to help carriers that bear a higher share of risk in the individual market by having those that shoulder less risk make payments to offset costs. It is a formula that has been problematic since the start for smaller plans in particular, but actuaries are on the alert that it could cause more headaches to come.

    Take an exchange insurer like Security Health Plan, an independent company in mostly rural Wisconsin where 60% of the people who buy their insurance from the Obamacare exchange qualify for financial help with co-pays—cost-sharing reduction payments—because their income falls below 250% of the federal poverty level.

    For Security Health Plan, President Donald Trump's sudden elimination of CSRs last October changed the makeup of its exchange market substantially. The cost of CSRs for about 60% of the people who enroll in the company's exchange plans is now funneled entirely into the middle-tier silver plans. This work-around is known as "silver-loading."

    Because silver-plan premiums are the benchmark for calculating tax credits used to subsidize lower-income enrollees' premiums, silver-loading has protected people with low incomes from bearing the brunt of the hikes. In fact, they have seen higher subsidies. In some cases, silver-loading has meant free or very cheap bronze plans and sharply reduced the premiums for gold plans as well.

    Because it has appeared to work so well, Democrats have largely lost interest in restoring the CSRs. An effort led by GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Susan Collins of Maine to fund CSRs and a $30 billion reinsurance pool as part of last month's $1.3 trillion spending omnibus failed, and any federal stabilization effort is now unlikely to happen.

    Silver-loading has accounted for about 20% of the Security Health Plan's silver-tier premium increases on the exchange. John Holahan of the Washington, D.C.-based Urban Institute said the nationwide average increase for silver premiums was more than 30% for 2018.

    Ultimately, silver-loading reshaped the use of the individual market even though the needs of the insured remains the same.

    "It's a forced reaction to a reaction," Michael Sautebin, actuary for Security Health Plan, said. "It was an artificial change, and we had to react."

    While silver-loading appears to be working for now—many left-leaning policy analysts now support leaving CSRs out of the picture because restoring them would bring premium subsidies down to their previous levels. Sautebin said carriers likely face a day of reckoning when the time for risk-adjustment payment transfers comes around.

    Stan Dorn of Families USA, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group, said risk adjustment will play out differently across the country, since risk adjustment is a "zero-sum game within each state."

    However, he noted, a different level of risk has now become associated with different plans as former silver-plan enrollees shift to higher-value gold or lower-value bronze.

    "If told that enrollees are now lower-risk than in the past, which is now the case, plans with a higher number of gold members may get too much compensation under risk adjustment," Dorn said.

    If higher-risk enrollees opt for bronze because they have free or very cheap premiums thanks to the increased subsidies, the carriers insuring those plans could lose money in the risk-adjustment payments. This could impact companies like Security Health Plan, which has seen a shift to bronze plans even though its population, which skews older, does need to use their coverage.

    And risk adjustment isn't the only thing actuaries are watching. They are also keeping an eye on how many low-income people now in cheaper or free bronze plans will actually be able to pay for care.

    The CMS released its 2018 open enrollment numbers on Tuesday. A breakdown by Andrew Sprung, who writes a blog called xpostfactoid closely tracking ACA enrollment, showed that for this year there was a drop in people able to use CSRs. Nearly 460,000 fewer people enrolled in ACA plans, while more than 750,000 fewer choose plans that let them use CSRs.

    The steepest drop in people who chose plans with CSRs came to the group of people between 200% and 250% of poverty—a 23% decline from last year even though total ACA enrollment in that group fell less than 3%.

    People in that range have an annual income of roughly $24,000 to just over $30,000 for an individual, or about $49,000 to $61,000 for a family of four.

    Actuaries and insurance officials noted that it is too early in the plan year to draw trends for how this is working out for enrollees, but an analysis pulled from HealthCare.gov and obtained by Modern Healthcare looks at how out-of-pocket costs should change for consumers. A 45-year-old at 140% of the poverty level who lives in Nashville could, for example, see out-of-pocket costs for Type 2 diabetes climb from $869 net cost per year (including a premium) with the lowest-cost CSR plan to $7,110 with a $0 premium bronze plan.

    Some in the insurance industry also worry about the continued impact on unsubsidized enrollees, particularly as the 2019 market brings other unknowns such as expansion of short-term, limited-duration plans and association health plans.

    Wisconsin's Security Health Plan couldn't protect the unsubsidized silver enrollees from the CSR bump, and so even the off-exchange silver group saw about a 20% attrition—double the attrition they have seen in previous years.

    Because most of the individual market in the plan's region is low-income, this wasn't a significant amount of people. But Sautebin noted that it poses a troubling trend, since Security Health Plan is the lowest-price option in the market, and it's unlikely those enrollees went to a competitor.

    "We are going to pay for these people one way or the other, either through insurance, or, if they are uninsured, through uncompensated care costs," said Marty Anderson of Security Health Plan. "When you've got such a small population, no insurer has enough market share to guarantee less volatility."

    To some extent, these concerns appear to be nascent. A spokesperson for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said so far the group has "heard nothing that would make us concerned about silver-loading."

    Dorn, who opposed restoration of CSRs because it would lower the tax credits for people who qualify for subsidies, said that he would like to see more state efforts on off-exchange silver plans to help the unsubsidized and noted the complexity of the issue.

    "The story is not unequivocal," Dorn said.



    Thursday, May 17, 2018

    Can we fix America broken health care system?

    Can we fix America’s broken health care system?

    May 14, 2018

    The fee-for-service way to pay doctors and other health care professionals has driven up health care costs in this country for many years, according to an article published by The New England Journal of Medicine. To improve the quality of care and reduce costs, the current design of America's health care system needs a makeover.
    Enhanced Personal Health Care (EPHC) is our approach to moving away from the fee-for-service model to one that's value-based. EPHC holds doctors accountable for delivering better coordinated care, improved quality and lower costs. Instead of simply treating symptoms, EPHC focuses on keeping people healthy.
    EPHC gives doctors the personal support, data, resources and incentives they need to change the way they practice health care. It's this change in behavior that results in more coordinated care, fewer unnecessary tests and better chronic disease management. The end results are improved health outcomes for members and lower costs for employers.
    Watch this video and see several health care professionals tell their personal stories of how EPHC helped transform their practices over the years.

    Sunday, April 22, 2018

    New Health Insurance Broker Fees 2018

    Broker Fees

    Beginning August 8, 2018, brokers in Colorado will be permitted to charge a fee for advising customers on the choice of a health plan if the broker:
      • Will not receive a commission on the plan from the health insurance company
      • Provides a written disclosure to the customer

    Brokers have played an important role in assisting our customers throughout our history and we expect that to continue.

    Some points to be aware of:
    • The Colorado Division of Insurance will develop rules to implement the new law
    • No fee can be charged in connection with an enrollment in Medicaid or CHP+
    • Connect for Health Colorado will continue to inform our customers on the full cost of their coverage and we will incorporate this change in future communications
    • This change applies to health plans sold in or outside the Connect for Health Colorado Marketplace for brokers who choose to charge a fee
    More information on the legislation, including the text of the bill, can be found here.