Tag Archives: employer mandate

Capitol Conference 2014 (or Your Intrepid Editor Goes to Washington)

Posted on by
1

MR BUCK GOES TO WASHINGTON II (2)

Late last week I returned from the National Association of Health Underwriters Capitol Conference 2014 in our nation’s capitol. Our group stayed in the shadow of the Capitol at the Capitol Hill Hyatt two blocks from where our laws or bills are created and passed. Our primary objective this year would be to address the ramifications of what is arguably the biggest Act ever in terms of its impact on all America. It was my first meeting to attend at a national level and I am grateful for the warm welcome provided me by the Houston, Texas Chapter and the entire experience. I express particular thanks to Lonnie Klene for facilitating my attendance and Malcolm Browne, Sibony-Trevino Toth, Jo Middleton and Jeffrey Bacot for their engaging conversation which made the informal time much more enjoyable.

 
The overall goal of the conference was to represent the interests of health insurance agents and brokers in their role of assisting the public in the administration’s goal of acquiring quality, affordable health insurance. Of course, because of what we now know are the results of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, this seems something of a daunting, if not failed, mission in terms for many of the stated beneficiaries at this point. Still, it was the Association’s stance that the bill is law and for now is the system we have to work with. As much as I would have liked to have protested and lobbied for solutions to our nation’s debt crisis; its lack of a viable energy policy and justice for the victims of Fort Hood and Benghazi – this was not the purpose of our attendance as a group nor the reason the Houston Chapter sponsored my presence at the conference. Those are issues which I will have to address through correspondence with the contacts I made and indirectly at the poll booth in the coming mid-term election.
The issues which our group did address with our respective Representatives were, among others:

 
1) The need for involvement of professionally licensed benefit specialists, i.e., agents and brokers (as opposed to unlicensed, unvetted navigators) to help consumers before, during and–most importantly–after the sale of private health insurance coverage and, of course, our opposition to their exclusion in this process.
2) Our concern over the inability of many employers to afford to offer coverage to their employees and the negative effect this has on our nation’s current economic uncertainty and limited job growth.
3) Our support of a comprehensive bill to rectify provisions of the law and new regulatory requirements that are creating compliance burdens for businesses and conflict with time tested employee benefit practices.
4) Our opposition to changes to time tested traditional definitions of small and large employers and full-time and part-time employees, this last of which has resulted in employers cutting employees to 29 hours thus making them part-time employees pursuant to the new definition (30 Hour Work Week) and contributing to under-employment.
5) Our opposition to age banding which unfairly discriminates against the young and does not accurately assign cost relative to risk.
6) Eliminating the national premium tax projected to add an average of $500 of costs to a typical family policy in 2014 and more thereafter.

 
For Seniors:
1) Our support of efforts to preserve Medicare options flexibility for recipients and restore the long-term financial health of the program.
2) Our opposition to funding the costs of the Affordable Care Act on the backs of our nation’s senior citizens. Specifically, cuts to Medicare Advantage and Part D Prescription Drug Plans.
3) Providing new financial incentives to encourage and make possible the purchase of long-term care insurance for our exploding senior population. (an average of 10,000 boomers turn age 65 every day)
Day 1 of the conference consisted in part of a break-out session covering the current state of the employer mandate; Private Exchanges for Employers; Medicaid 101 and Compliance.
Day 2 Addressed The Political Impact of Health Reform; The Future of the Marketplace (federal and state exchanges) followed by lobbying on Capitol Hill. It was at this point Lonnie Klene, Sibony Trevino-Toth and myself met briefly with our District 8 Representative, Kevin Brady and longer with his assistant, Andriu Colgan. Like most aides, Andriu was young, bright and responsive to our concerns (as outlined above) and assured us Congressman Brady was sympathetic to these. In his brief time with us, he confirmed such.

KENTON AT CAPITOL 2 (2)

Your blog editor outside Representative Brady’s Office in the Cannon Building.

CAPITOL AT NIGHT 2

That evening, I was one of a group of Texans privileged to attend a 3.5 hour tour of the Capitol hosted by Texas District One Republican Representative Louie Gohmert, from a boyhood home of mine, Tyler Texas. He insisted he knew some of my cousins, but there was no doubt he knew an incredible amount of our nation and its leader’s history which he very generously shared with us. He is a remarkable story teller with a keen sense of humor and the tour he hosted for us, most of whom will never have occasion to vote for him, proved to be one of the most memorable experiences of my life. My appreciation of our nation’s history and heritage (which was already tremendous) is even greater thanks to him. And he made no bones–he’s with me on the issues! If I lived in his district, he’d certainly have my vote!

CONGRESSMAN LOUIE GOHMERT 1

U.S. Representative, Texas First Congressional District, Louis B. Gohmert, Jr.

 
Day 3 consisted of a panel of physicians discussing Health Cost Transparency; “The Marketplace Transformed” hosted by Representative Renee Elmers (R-NC); Jennifer Duffy, Senior Editor, The Cook Political Report and Representative Jim Matheson (D-UT).
All sessions were followed by a fairly extensive, cogent question and answer period.
This last day ended with a special presentation entitled “Taking It All Home” by Dan Clark, motivational speaker and author of, among other works, the “Chicken Soup for The Soul” series. I must say that after the stress of all the change the Affordable Care Act has brought to this agent, and the others in attendance, we were in need of his inspirational soup and it proved very therapeutic.

 
All in all I came home with more knowledge and ideas of how to assist my clients in dealing with the reality and mandates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as it stands for now.

 
My advice in short? Just don’t blink!

http://allplanhealthinsurance.com

Polls Clearly Indicate the Affordable Care Act Losing Popularity

Posted on by
Reply

07.30.2013

Polls clearly indicate that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is losing popularity with not only Democrats and Republican politicians but the American public in general. In spite of the fact that no real costs of the Affordable Care Act to employers have been realized (other than those spent in attempts to decipher it through paid consultants or in house benefits directors and actuaries) popularity for the law continues to diminish. Much of this disenchantment could stem from the fact that more of us are realizing we really may lose our current health coverage and–perhaps more importantly–our providers. Others realize part-time employment may become the norm as employers attempt to avoid the mandate they provide health insurance to full time employees, i.e., those working 30 or more hours per week. It is a highly unpopular mandate with labor unions which have always supported a minimum 40 hour work week as the definition of full-time employment. It seems only logical many employers will restrict workers to less than 30 hours in attempt to avoid providing health insurance coverage. Another unintended consequence of government’s attempts to improve things.

Admin. – Kenton Henry

******************************

Featured Articles (Reprints June 30th and 26th Editions of the National Association of Health Underwriter’s Washington Update)

Is Health Reform Losing Its Base?

It is no secret that public support for health reform has always been mixed at best and that many Republicans have strongly disliked this law from the start. Now it seems like moderate Democrats are joining the pessimistic about health reform crowd. A recent poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News showed that moderate Democrats (who were previous PPACA supporters) are becoming lukewarm about the health reform law. When the law was initially passed in 2011, 74% of moderate and conservative Democrats were in favor of the law. Now, that number is down to 46%. Even more notable is that support is 11 points lower than what it was last year at this time. Liberal Democrats on the other hand still strongly support the law, with 78% of them still loving it to be exact. Among the public at large, 42% support and 49% oppose the law, retreating from an even split at 47% last July. On average, 56% of Democrats now support the law, according to the poll, down 10% from last year.
The same day these polling results were released, President Obama gave a speech out of Knox, Illinois on the economy. While the focus of the speech was the nation’s economy, President Obama unsurprisingly, given the magnitude of its economic impact, brought up the health reform law and tried again to raise support. This time, the president noted that the law is in fact working in the states that embrace it. Many of the states that have decided to fight the law are not seeing as many positive results. He cited states such as California and New York as proof that the law is driving costs down. The president also said that we are “well on our way” to full implementation of the law and that once implemented, the law’s benefits will provide security to middle class families.

*****************************

Legislation and Policy

Republicans Divided Over Threat To Defund ACA.
Many outlets, mostly out of the beltway, focus on the political machinations surrounding funding for the Affordable Care Act. The reports highlight a growing rift among factions of the Republican party: those who are pushing to defund the law using a spending bill, and those who believe the move, which could ultimately result in a government shutdown, would be politically dangerous.
Roll Call (7/30, Dennis, Fuller, Subscription Publication) reports that “with 60 Republicans already pushing…to defund Obamacare in any spending bill,” Speaker John Boehner “may not be able to cobble together a House majority” to stave off a government shutdown without courting Democrats. The article notes, though, that “several prominent Republicans” have spoken out against the effort, as this threat “would surely backfire on Republicans if they carry it out.”
FOX News (7/30) reports on the “divide” in the GOP, saying that the “aggressive” push to defund the Affordable Care Act is “increasingly pitting Republicans against Republicans.”
Indeed, several Republicans have spoken out against defunding the law. Politico (7/30, Arkin) reports that in an appearance on MSNBC Monday, House Deputy Whip Tom Cole (R-OK) warned that “shutting down the government to defund Obamacare is a ‘suicidal political tactic.’” Cole is quoted as saying, “Shutting down the government is a suicidal political tactic. Eventually it will be reopened, but the president will not have capitulated and you will have discredited yourself and along the way you will have hurt the American people.”
The Washington Examiner (7/30, Carroll) reports on another high profile Republican who is against defunding the Affordable Care Act, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, who called the efforts “dishonest” and “hype.”
Also reporting on Republican opposition to the tactic are MSNBC (7/30, MacDonald) and the Tulsa (OK) World (7/30, Greene).
However, many Republicans are still pushing for the tactic, led Monday by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Politico (7/30, Kopan) reports that in an interview with Glenn Beck Monday, Cruz argued that Republicans have the opportunity to can defund the ACA, but “‘scared’ Republicans are standing in the way.” Cruz said, “What I can tell you is there are a lot of Republicans in Washington who are scared. They’re scared of being beaten up politically.”
The Washington Examiner (7/30, Spiering) reports that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) “defended” the proposal, saying, “With all these problems why would anyone want to continue with this failed experiment? Only in Washington do people double down on their mistakes.”
Other outlets reporting on Republicans who support fighting for defunding the ACA include the Huffington Post (7/30, Schlanger), the NBC News (7/30, Hunt) website, the Deseret (UT) News (7/30, Askar), The Hill (7/30, Baker) “Healthwatch” blog, The Hill (7/30, Jaffe) “Ballot Box” blog, and the Washington Examiner (7/30, Spiering).
As one of the few Democrats inserting himself into the intra-GOP rift, Politico (7/30, Everett) reports that on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “If Republicans force us to the brink of another government shutdown for ideological reasons, the economy will suffer. I would suggest to any of my Republican colleagues that has this idea: Give a call to Newt Gingrich. … Ask him how it worked. It was disastrous for Newt Gingrich, the Republicans and the country.”
Commentary Considers GOP Rift Over Defunding ACA. In addition to accounts of the Republican rift over defunding the Affordable Care Act, several outlets carry analyses and opinion pieces reacting to the debate. Despite some maintaining sympathies for the Republican cause, all conclude that the tactic is certain to fail at the least, and potentially dangerous for the party at the most.
Well-known conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin, in her Washington Post (7/30) “Right Turn” blog, quotes various Republican leaders who are speaking out against the tactic, including Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who called it “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” Rubin concludes that it is a “certainty” that “the GOP is not going to defund Obamacare on its namesake’s watch.”
Sean Sullivan, in his Washington Post (7/30, Sullivan) “The Fix” blog, calls Cruz’s decision to call his GOP colleagues “scared” for not going along with his plan “a perilous move.” While he is confirming his “conservative bona fides,” Sullivan writes, Cruz is also highlighting his “willingness to be an antagonist at virtually every turn.”
Brent Budowsky, in a piece for The Hill (7/30) “Pundits Blog,” writes that as many Republicans agree, “threatening to shut the government down over healthcare is profoundly unwise policy for America and profoundly unwise politics for the GOP.”
Avik Roy offers a lengthy analysis of the tactic in his Forbes (7/30) “Apothecary” blog, saying that a one year delay of the ACA’s central provisions may be better than a complete repeal.
On the MSNBC (7/30) website, Geoffrey Cowley criticizes Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) for doubling down on the “kill-it-at-all-costs rhetoric,” seeking to blame President Obama for a potential government shutdown.
Dennis Byrne, a Chicago writer, calls the plan “more than stupid,” in the Chicago Tribune (7/30). He argues that the tactic “will surely fail,” and could very well “cost the GOP in the 2014 elections, possibly including control of the House.” The only way to repeal the law, he concludes, is to “turn the spotlight on what they’d replace it with.”
Similarly, in an editorial, the Baton Rouge (LA) Advocate (7/30) criticizes Republicans for continuing to oppose the Affordable Care Act without coming up with a viable alternative. The paper argues that any sort of GOP-sanctioned replacement “requires legislative initiative, not just opposition.”
Syndicated columnist Jules Witcover writes in the Baltimore Sun (7/30) that despite continued unpopularity, the Affordable Care Act “will nevertheless prevail.”
House To Vote This Week To Repeal Part Of ACA For 40th Time.
The Hill (7/30, Baker) “Healthwatch” blog reports that this week, the House will vote “for the 40th time to repeal part of ObamaCare.” The bill, sponsored by Representative Tom Price (R-GA), restricts the IRS from implementing any part of the law. The article points out that this is part of the GOP’s “effort to keep up the negative pressure” following the employer mandate delay.
Republicans Seek To Change ACA’s Definition Of Full-Time Employment.
CQ (7/30, Attias, Subscription Publication) reports on the “ongoing debate” over whether Congress should revise the Affordable Care Act’s definition of full time employment. So far, “Republicans and business representatives” have voiced their support for “an effort to change the definition to 40 hours a week,” but Democrats aren’t behind it.
The Delmarva (MD) Daily Times (7/30, Gaudiano) also reports on the effort to change the full-time employment threshold.
ACA Call Center Under Fire For Not Offering Health Benefits To All Workers.
FOX News (7/30) reports that a call center set up to offer Affordable Care Act assistance in Contra Costa, California, is making news for not offering health insurance to all of its employees. The state’s budget “only allows for half of the customer service agents hired to work full-time,” which many in the community find “disappointing.”
Feds’ Marketing Of ACA To Young People May Violate Age Discrimination Act.
The Daily Caller (7/29, Howley) reports that the Obama Administration’s public relations campaign touting “the benefits of enrolling in Obamacare” to young people “appears to violate the federal Age Discrimination Act,” which “states that no program that receives federal money can discriminate with respect to age.” The Daily Caller notes that the “campaign-style demographic targeting” would “at least initially have the discriminatory effect of not equally promoting subsidized health care to older participants whose participation would not be as favorable for Obamacare’s convoluted apparatus.”


http://allplanhealthinsurance.com

House to Vote on Affordable Care Act Individual and Employer Mandates

Posted on by
Reply

07.17.2013

Currently we have over 800,000 veterans awaiting decisions on their disability claims. The back log is so great–according to the most recent numbers available–the average wait time for a veteran is 15 months in Chicago, 16 months in New York and a year and a half in Los Angeles. Social Security’s disability program, which helps support 11 million Americans, will run through its trust fund in 2016, two years earlier than predicted. Couple this with the prediction Social Security, the fund that finances benefits for 44 million senior citizens and their survivors, will be exhausted by 2035 and Medicare, the health care program for those age 65 and over, will be have depleted its funds by 2024. Now consider a law has been passed which mandates health coverage for every American. Its objectives are largely, and initially, funded via subsidies from the federal government (you the tax payer). Can you possibly believe this is feasible given their track record? Given a federal debt of almost 17 trillion dollars? How long do you believe it will take before all private insurance companies are forced to withdraw from participation to be replaced by a single payer federally administrated program which can’t possibly be any more financially feasible than our government’s disability program, Social Security or Medicare?

Admin. – Kenton Henry

http://allplanhealthinsurance.com

****************************************************************

Today’s Feature Articles:

Legislation and Policy

House Votes To Target ACA Individual, Employer Mandates.

Coverage of the Obama Administration’s decision to delay the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate continues Wednesday, the same day the House is set to vote to further capitalize on the weak position they believe the move has put Democrats in. Most reports, some national in scope, focus on the House votes to delay both the employer and individual mandates, while others focus on the implications of both of these provisions.

McClatchy                          (7/17, Kumar) reports that on Wednesday, the Republican-ruled House is expected to vote to delay key parts of the Affordable Care Act, a move that “is the latest in a sweeping legislative and political campaign to weaken the 2010 law and raise even more opposition in the eyes of an already skeptical nation, especially as it heads into 2014 elections that will decide control of the Congress and set the stage for the 2016 campaign for the White House.” The back-to-back votes will determine “whether to delay insurance mandates for both employers and individuals.”

The Washington Times

(7/16, Howell) reports that “President Obama has threatened to veto” the bills. Meanwhile, “the votes will force Democrats to align with the president or distance themselves from the overhaul in the wake of its recent stumbles.” In addition, it has put the “Office of Management and Budget in the awkward position of threatening, in the case of the employer mandate, to kill a bill that would reflect the White House’s own decision-making.”

CNN

(7/16, Walsh) reports that “most House Democrats are expected to oppose two House Republican bills on Wednesday that would delay key provisions of Obamacare,” according to House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

The Hill

(7/17, Baker) “Healthwatch” blog reports that the bill to delay the individual mandate “would cut the deficit, but would cause insurance premiums to rise,” according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Implications Of Employer Mandate Delay Still Unclear. The AP

(7/17, Alonso-Zaldivar) reports on the “domino effect” that is currently “undercutting” the Affordable Care Act: the Obama Administration’s delaying of the law’s employer mandate could “weaken” the individual mandate, because the requirement that companies report health insurance details for employers has also been pushed back. As the article explains, “without employers validating who’s covered, a scofflaw could lie, and the government would have no easy way to check.” The piece calls this yet “another incentive for uninsured people to ignore a new government requirement that for many will cost hundreds of dollars.”

****************************************************************

Not All Insurers Game for State Exchanges: The Consumer Impact

By Kate Rogers

Published July 11, 2013

FOXBusiness

As more insurers decide to pack up and leave certain states as health exchanges start to take form, experts say consumers are going to be left  feeling the pain.

Over the last few weeks, several departure announcements have sent a ripple through the health insurance industry, as companies weigh whether or not they want to play ball under Obamacare. So far, California has experienced the biggest migration  with Aetna (AET), UnitedHealthcare (UNH) and Cigna (CI) leaving the state’s exchange, Covered California.

Aetna also reportedly sent out a note to select customers last week, warning that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is “changing health insurance.” Recipients were customers across the country with non-grandfathered health plans, meaning their plan was not in effect on March 23, 2010 and wouldn’t carry over under new state and federal exchange regulations under ACA.

“This includes adding preventative care and essential health benefits. The ACA also ends medical underwriting. Due to these and other changes, many people will pay more for their health insurance coverage in 2014 than they do today,” the letter stated according to the carrier.

Wellmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield also decided not to list on the individual exchange in Iowa for 2014, due to a lack of information available in the state, according to a spokesperson for the Iowa Insurance Division.

Fifteen states and the District of Colombia are in the process of creating their insurance exchanges before the 2014 deadline; when individuals must purchase insurance or face a fine for failing for comply with the individual mandate. The employer mandate has been pushed back to 2015, and some in the GOP including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, (R-VA), are calling for the individual mandate to be rolled back as well.

More or Less Competition for Consumers?

Some experts say the recent departures hint consumers will have limited health-insurance choices thanks to the regulatory burdens of the law. Basic supply and demand dictates that with fewer insurers to choose from, consumers will have limited options and potentially higher prices, says Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute.

A similar “exodus” occurred within the first six months of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, Cannon says, when child-only care was enacted. Seventeen major insurers dropped child-only coverage, in an attempt to skirt the law’s new regulations and increased costs. The same may begin to take shape in the individual market.

“The program says you can’t charge higher premiums to the sick, so you have a situation where only low-risk consumers would be charged a premium much higher than their regular costs, so only people who buy it would be those who really needed it,” he says.

The employer mandate rollback is also a factor in the situation, says Grace-Marie Turner, founder of the Galen Institute, a health and tax policy research organization, as employers will now be incentivized to drop coverage and push their employees into the exchanges until 2015.

“It’s using employers to push more people into the exchanges,” Turner says.

Fewer insurers in state exchanges mean less competition, bottom line, she adds. “The whole point is we want more players, and more competition.”

Why California Matters

What happens in California is a big deal for the future of the Affordable Care Act, says Taylor Burke, associate professor and program director, MPH in Health Policy, at George Washington University.

“It’s an exit out the individual market, but [the insurers] only represent 8% of the individual market companies in the state,” Burke says. “California has the 7th largest economy on the globe, so whatever happens in California is a big deal for the stand up of the state exchanges.”

He points to two main reasons insurers leave a state: they don’t like the price points being offered in the exchanges nor the coverage they would have to offer under Obamacare’s 10 essential health benefits.

“In California, you can make the argument that there would be less choice, but if they stay in the market, their prices would be off the charts,” he says. “It would be a thing on the shelf, a high-ticket item that you couldn’t afford anyway.”

And if insurers take too long to make the decision, that may impact them negatively as well, he says.

“No one will want to buy their product. There’s a lot of hemming and hawing, but if the price point is too high, no one will buy it.”

But can consumers blame the insurer for higher prices? Turner says no, it’s the nature of the law’s regulations.

“Insurers can’t help the demands on the benefits they will have to cover—it will absolutely be more expensive,” she says. “It’s like going to buy a car with every accessory in the books—heated seats, fancy wheels, satellite radio, and saying you can’t charge more for it.”

What Insurers are Deciding

Robert Zirkenbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), says each individual company will have to make their own decisions about which states to participate in as exchange bids come in.

“It will be based on a variety of reasons, but plans are offering coverage on the exchange, some will be outside the exchange—there will be options for consumers,” Zirkenbach says. “It will depend on the state and regulatory environment.”

He says the AHIP wants competition among insurers to keep consumer prices in check.  “Choice and competition is a good thing—when states have been setting up their exchanges, we are trying to encourage this,” he says.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners says insurers who are leaving these markets are likely doing so because they have core businesses in other segments, including the large group market.

“The carriers we have seen exiting the individual market are not major players in that market segment, and therefore we don’t anticipate a major disruption of coverage for a large portion of the market,” a spokesperson said in an email statement. “Each insurance company is making decisions regarding its participation in exchanges based upon a number of factors.  Some are opting to participate in the exchanges, while others are not; however, nearly all of the requirements that apply to policies sold on the exchange also apply to policies sold outside the exchange, so insurers will not be avoiding a lot of requirements by opting out of the exchanges.”