Tag Archives: premium tax credit

WILL MEDICARE RECIPIENTS FINALLY GET A BREAK? . . . WHY MARKETPLACE INSURED PROBABLY WON’T

Posted on by
Reply

By D. Kenton Henry Broker, editor 19 April 2022 

While inflation has costs for necessities, such as gas and food items, skyrocketing to an average of 8.5% in March and much higher for the aforementioned items – Social Security saw fit to only increase the Income Benefit to SSI recipients to 5.9%. Seniors, many of whom are subsisting on fixed incomes, might be able to cut their need for gasoline, but I do not know any who can get by without food, shelter, and electricity. Many are struggling to pay their bills already, and inflation shows little sign of abating.  

This was only until 09/2021, at which time, apparently only apples inflated lower than our current rate of inflation. 

But how about the argument that all this inflation is due to Putin and the war in Ukraine? Russia launched a full-scale assault on Ukraine February 22. One month after the end of the timeline in the chart below. 

When was our current president inaugurated? . . . Answer: January 20, 2021. Take a look at the green line above charting the Consumer Price Index on that date. (I will leave it at that.) 

To add insult to injury, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) increased Part B (outpatient care) premiums by 15% to a base premium -for those with an annual income of less than or equal to $91,000 – to $170.10 per month. Thank you very much!  

However, as described in Feature Article 1 below, due in part to a 50% cut in the cost of a $56,000 Part D covered drug, CMS is considering reducing that Part B Premium. My experience is that the government seldom gives back what they are already receiving . . . but one can only hope. 

For those involved in Marketplace medical coverage – health insurance for individuals and families under the age of 65 – the opposite action on the part of the Department of Health and Human Services may occur. Specifically, the extended enhanced premium tax credits made available by the American Rescue Plan, which enabled an additional 3 million Americans to receive a subsidy lowering their net monthly premium to as low as $0, are set to expire at the end of the year. As described in Feature Article 3 below, it is estimated 4.9 million more people will go uninsured if enhanced benefits are not extended. Never mind it is estimated the extension of such would increase the federal deficit by $305 billion dollars. Of course, the Treasury can simply print more money, further increasing inflation and diminishing the buying power of one’s paycheck or Social Security Income. 

Lastly, medical expenses are no exception to inflation. If you wonder why health insurance premiums or out-of-pocket costs for healthcare are being affected, refer to article 3 below. They start high and increase as one goes from a doctor’s office to an Urgent Care facility to a hospital emergency room. Avoid the latter unless it is a true emergency because it will cost an average of $444 for low to moderate severity treatment. Heaven, forbid you have an overnight stay in a hospital without medical insurance because the average cost is $11,700. As cited in the chart below, it only goes up depending on the type of insurance you have. 

 Should your stay extend to three days, expect to cost to be an average of $30,000. And what if you don’t have health insurance? Here are the average costs of various treatments.

Take a look at what you might pay for each hospital bill without insurance: 

 *(Data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) 

While I cannot guarantee we have seen the worst of inflation – let alone that the government is going to provide us any meaningful relief in the immediate future. But I am here to assist you in acquiring medical coverage, which gives you access to the care and treatment you need to regain or preserve your health without being financially ruined. I will do my best to help you maintain access to as many of your preferred medical doctors and hospitals as the present market allows. I do not charge a fee for my services. There is no additional cost for the insights and value of my 36 years of experience in the health and Medicare-related insurance market. Neither is there any additional cost in acquiring an insurance product through me than if you walked through the door of your preferred insurance company and purchased their product directly from them. There is no obligation to take my learned advice.  

Please give me a call and let’s discuss your situation before the very busy “Open Enrollment” Periods are upon us and everyone is scrambling to mitigate what are almost certain to be the increasing costs of health care

.

Office: 291-367-6565 Text my cell 24/7 @ 713-907-7984 Email: Allplanhealthinsurance.com@gmail.com Https://TheWoodlandsTXHealthInsurance.com Https://Allplanhealthinsurance.com 

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

FEATURED ARTICLE 1 

FIERCE HEALTHCARE 

CMS, FDA present united front against criticism of Aduhelm coverage decision 

AHIP applauded CMS for covering the drug and “related services such as PET scans if required b the trial protocol.” 

Other stakeholders said that now the coverage decision has been finalized it is time for CMS to take action on lowering Part B premiums. 

CMS has yet to announce any final decision on Part B premiums, which is increased by 15% for 2022. A key reason was the $56,000 price tag for Aduhelm. 

However, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra announced in January that the agency was rethinking the 15% hike after Biogen halved the price of Aduhelm in December.  

Becerra told reporters on Tuesday before the coverage decision that he was waiting to see what “CMS gives back to us in terms of their assessment and then once we get that information we will see where we go.” 

 CMS told Fierce Healthcare on Friday that it has yet to decide on a redetermination for the premium. 

But advocates are hoping the agency moves faster on scaling back the premium hike. 

“Medicare beneficiaries struggling to pay their bills need relief from this year’s premium increase as soon as possible,” said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. 

Pharma and Alzheimer’s disease patient advocacy groups slammed the decision, however, noting that it will hamper access to the drug. 

“CMS has further complicated matters by taking the unprecedented step of applying different standards for coverage of medicines depending on the FDA approval pathway taken, undermining the scientific assessment by experts at FDA,” said Nicole Longo, spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in a statement.

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

FEATURED ARTICLE 2 

BENEFITSPRO.COM 

End to ACA tax credits could leave 3 million uninsured 

But extending the enhanced credits would increase the federal deficit by $305 billion over 10 years. 

By Alan Goforth | April 08, 2022 at 09:32 AM 

    

Congress would need to act by midsummer to give marketplaces, insurers and outreach programs time to prepare for the 2023 open enrollment period. 

More than three million people could lose insurance coverage if enhanced premium tax credits included in the American Rescue Plan expire at the end of this year, according to a new report from the Urban Institute. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 increased credits for Marketplace insurance coverage and extended eligibility to more individuals. 

“If Congress does not extend these benefits, marketplace enrollment will most likely fall and the number of people uninsured will increase,” said Jessica Banthin, senior fellow at the organization. “Our findings show that 4.9 million fewer people will be enrolled in subsidized Marketplace coverage in 2023 if the enhanced credits aren’t extended. This comes at a pivotal time when millions of people will be losing Medicaid as the public health emergency expires.

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

FEATURED ARTICLE 3

 Average charges for 8 common procedures across ER, retail and urgent care settings 

Alia Paavola – Wednesday, March 30th, 2022  

In 2020, the median charge for a 30- to 44-minute new patient office visit ranged from $164 in a retail clinic to $234 in an urgent care center, according to a March report from Fair Health. 

For the report, Fair Health, an independent nonprofit focused on enhancing transparency of healthcare costs and health insurance information, analyzed billions of private healthcare claims records from its database. 

Below is the average charge for eight common procedures, as identified by CPT code, performed in retail, urgent care and emergency room settings: 

Retail 

  • Office outpatient visit 20-29 minutes (99213): $114 
  • Streptococcus test (87880): $36 
  • Immunization administration (90471): $33 
  • Office outpatient visit 30-39 minutes (99214): $159 
  • Office outpatient, new, 30-44 minutes (99203): $164 
  • Flu test (87804): $42 
  • Office outpatient, new, 15-29 minutes (99202): $131 
  • Flu vaccination (90686): $31 

Urgent care 

  • Office outpatient visit 30-39 minutes (99214): $232 
  • Office outpatient visit 20-29 minutes (99213): $174 
  • Office outpatient, new, 30-44 minutes (99203): $234 
  • Streptococcus test (87880): $43 
  • Office outpatient, new, 45-59 minutes (99204): $313 
  • Flu test (87804): $46 
  • Therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic injection (96372): $59 
  • Office outpatient visit, new, 15-29 minutes (99202): 178 

Emergency room 

  • Emergency department visit — high severity/life-threatening (99285): $1,262 
  • Emergency department visit — high/urgent severity (99284): $919 
  • Emergency department visit — moderate severity (99283): $624 
  • Electrocardiogram (93010): $54 
  • Single-view chest X-ray (71045): $58 
  • CT head/brain without contrast material (70450): $323 
  • Two-view chest X-ray (71046): $69 
  • Emergency department visit — low/moderate severity (99282): $444 

AS YOU SLEEP THE FUTURE OF YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE SUBSIDY HANGS IN THE BALANCE

Posted on by
Reply

KENTONSBUSINESSWEBPHOTO

Op-Ed by D. Kenton Henry

While most Americans who receive a health insurance subsidy to offset the cost of the coverage they obtained from the federal website, Healthcare.gov, go quietly about their personal business―the future of that subsidy―and the very future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or Affordable Care Act (ACA) for short―which gave birth to said subsidies―hangs in the balance. And, for the most part, these same Americans remain blissfully ignorant that the future of their health insurance protection hangs with it also. Apparently sleeping as its fate is to be decided by the 30th of this very month when the Supreme Court releases its decision on King vs. Burwell.

King vs. Burwell contests the financial help available to some enrollees on  the federal insurance exchange in 34 states on the basis that the PPACA was not written to allow for the existence of subsidies provided by the federal exchange. In fact, the plaintiffs argue just the opposite―that only those exchanges established by the states could provide such. Should the court rule in favor of the administration, it will mean the law has survived one more effort to derail it and its future may well be assured. However, If the plaintiffs prevail, that leaves the estimated 6.4 million recipients of the subsidies in the thirty four states which did not with illegally subsidized health insurance. And, without subsidies . . . health insurance reform starts to fall apart. The majority of the recipients will drop their coverage and only the sickest―who bring the most expensive claims to the insurance companies―will remain on their plans. This phenomena is know within the industry as “adverse selection”. In reality, it means that the youngest and the healthiest, regardless of age, will flee their plans like rats off a sinking ship. And the sinking ship will be Obamacare. The law itself. This is because it is estimated that insurance premiums for these 6.4 million will increase an average 256%. A result which will single-handedly insert the substitution “Unaffordable” into the Affordable Care Act―Obama’s signature landmark legislation― sending it into a classic death spiral.

And what does the Supreme Court’s decision hinge on? Four key words: “established by the state”. As in the subsidies are to be available only to income qualified recipients in those exchanges established by the state. The four words are contained in that portion of the law which details how premium subsidies are calculated for health insurance policies. Plaintiffs argue thirty four states never established an exchange. Ergo, how can subsidies be provided for their residents? They argue the wording was constructed to serve as an incentive for the states to create own exchange; the states called the federal government’s bluff and the feds willy-nilly pulled a rabbit out of their head and provided federal exchange subsidies for which no provision within the law was made. To follow their argument to its logical conclusion, the Internal Revenue Service has violated the law by providing tax credits to individuals in these states.

The administration argues that exchanges were created by the states when they effectively opted to let the federal government do it for them. Therefore, their inaction became their action. This allows subsidies to be provided their residents.

As a health insurance broker with twenty-nine years in the industry, I have survived the inevitable ups and downs of the small business owner. I, and my practice, have survived Hillary’s attempt in the early nineties at health care reform and the deterring effect of ever increasing health care costs; the resulting sky-rocketing insurance premiums and the general turbulence of an industry which attempts to manage the costs of a sector which comprises an estimated twenty percent of our nation’s economy. I have survived the Affordable Care Act’s resulting cut in my compensation and the loss of hundreds of clients who were forced off their policies because they did not comply with the law’s mandates. Policies with which, for the most part, my clients were happy. Had they not been, they would have dropped them on their own. I now survive the effect of premiums which have risen on average fifteen percent each of the last two years and, in many cases, much, much more for those clients who do not qualify for the subsidy. The bottom line is, “if you qualify for a significant subsidy, you are probably happy with this law. If you qualify for a relatively small subsidy―or none at all―you are most likely very unhappy with it.” It seems everyone is judging it from the perspective of their own personal welfare. And that is human nature, is it not? And I reluctantly admit, I am no exception. And it is not without guilt I do so.

Because, if the subsidies are revoked, by my estimates, I stand to lose approximately two thirds of the new business I have written in the last two years since ACA plans were forced on the public under threat of penalty. Just last month I experienced the first and slightest increase in income since the act’s passage in March of 2010. My income had been decreasing precipitously since then, mostly due to the “minimum loss ratios” imposed on insurance companies resulting in maximum losses to the agent and broker. But I accepted these; remained committed to my industry and business and have survived. If King v. Burwell is decided in favor of the administration’s adversaries, my clients will let their coverage lapse and the resulting personal effect will be “two steps forward and three steps back”. Hence, the guilt. The guilt born of knowing the worst aspects of this law (unknown to average person) are yet to be implemented and only a minute portion of the resulting costs are currently apparent. Those forthcoming will have a devastating effect on our nation’s treasury which is already eighteen trillion in debt and rising “with a bullet”. I know that progression of this law and its mandates is already forcing rationing of our health care providers and further progression is going to result in ever increasing rationing of health care treatment available to each of us. And yet, for my own sake, I don’t want to experience more losses.

Please do not think I do believe there was no need for health care reform. When two of every five health insurance applications I submitted on behalf of clients was declined due to pre-existing conditions and another not taken due to “waivers” of such (prior to the law’s enforcement) I experienced the angst of my clients and my own.

And so I sit, in front of my computer desktop, on the edge of my seat monitoring each post from SCOTUSBLOG.COM and each editorial from the most liberal to conservative journalist (who knows much less about this law than I) attempting to predict as to which way this imminently pending decision will go. The patriotic conservative within me says, “for the welfare of my nation’s economy, this law should fail.” While the agent, broker, small business man within me who likes to eat, pay his bills, maybe put something away for retirement and doesn’t want to see any more of his clients lose their very necessary and greatly appreciated health insurance coverage says―”Please, oh, please. Let the Supreme Court of this United States of America, in all their supremacy, rule that the authors of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act didn’t really mean what they wrote. Let the subsidies stand.”

http://thewoodlandstxhealthinsurance.com

http://allplaninsurance.com

http://healthandmedicareinsurance.com

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

Related stories:

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Politics

Four Words That Imperil Health Care Law Were All a Mistake, Writers Now Say

By ROBERT PEAR MAY 25, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/politics/contested-words-in-affordable-care-act-may-have-been-left-by-mistake.html?ref=us

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

MORNING CONSULT Burwell Draws Line On Health Subsidy Fix Jon Reid   |   June 10, 2015  http://morningconsult.com/2015/06/burwell-draws-line-on-health-subsidy-fix/

“Happy Anniversary Healthcare.Gov!” (Do We Want A Divorce?)

Posted on by
Reply

Op-ed by D. Kenton Henry

BIRTHDAY CAKE

 

Happy anniversary, Healthcare.gov! Today, October 1st, marks the first anniversary of the premier of the originally beleaguered Federally Facilitated “Marketplace” (FFM), the federal government website for the purchase of Affordable Care Act (ACA) compliant health insurance plans in states which did not implement their own. And what of it now?

After a rollout, which was anything but smooth, and a current expenditure of approximately $2.1 billion dollars (after a winning bid of $90 million) the site seems to have solved the majority of its “front- end” issues. These involve opening an account; verifying identity and plan selection. But in light of notice that the time has run out for those who did not succeed in providing adequate proof of income for subsidy (“Premium Tax Credit”) purposes thereby resulting in their loss of coverage or―at least the subsidy―one is left wondering what if anything will change relative to this “back-end” issue for 2015. According to a September 15th article in the New York Times, approximately half a million insured face a forced plan change. “363,000 could lose their premium subsidies due to an inability to verify income, while 115,000 more could have their policies canceled because they have not proven their immigration status. Federal authorities have been working for months to resolve both backlogs.”

My BlueCross BlueShield of Texas clients who have “grand-mothered” plans just received notice dated today that “The health plan you now have will no longer be available and cannot be renewed”. Grand-mothered plans are those which have been modified in anyway, such as a change in deductible, but purchased prior to January 1 of this year when all new policies were required to be ACA compliant. Termination will be effective the end of 12.31.2014 and the client, insured will have until that date to enroll in a new plan for seamless coverage beginning January 1. These policyholders are instructed to log in starting November 15th to review their options and elect new coverage through BlueCross BlueShield. What will the benefits look like and what will be the cost? Well, we won’t know until November 15th. The consensus seems to be that premiums in all but a few locations will be increasing somewhat across the market compared to this year’s ACA compliant plans but at less than the average rate of medical inflation in recent years. (Call me skeptical.) But what about compared to their grand-mothered plan? No way. By the time you add in the additional cost of mandated coverage for benefits such as pediatric dental and vision, maternity and the rest of the “minimum essential health benefits” along with guarantee issue for pre-existing conditions, there is no way these policyholders are going to be pleased with the premiums their new options will cost. If they had thought the marketplace offered better options, they would have elected them for 2014. I am certain the words, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” will be ringing in their ears as they peruse their new options.

On the upside, an estimated 25% additional insurance companies will be providing coverage for 2015 both in and out of the marketplace and state exchanges. This increased competition will give consumerd more options and will hopefully help offset some of the inflationary aspects of mandated coverage in future years.

On the downside, what of the “It’s a penalty … not a tax!” ― now known as the “Shared Responsibility Payment” ― for not having coverage in 2015? That increases to $325 per adult and $162.50 per child or 2% of household income ― whichever is higher. (Family maximum is $975.) It will increase every year hereafter, tied to the rate of inflation beyond 2016.

Additional variables remain to be seen such as “provider selection”. While pressure is being put on insurance companies to increase the number of in-network providers available to the insured, surveys seem to indicate more providers are electing not to join. They feel payments have dropped to low to make it worth their while to participate. Insurance companies are going have to find alternative ways to control costs and since they cannot control the risk they are forced to assume (elative to pre-existing conditions and the mandated “loss ratio”) they are going to ration our providers and our treatment.

On a final note, the enrollment period for 2015 plans will be half as long as for 2014 and will end February 15th. So get ready to be like the sheep, in the Wild Kingdom segment, passing through the anaconda. It’s going to be a tight squeeze! And once again . . . “Happy Anniversary to Healthcare.gov!”

By all means, please contact me if you feel I can make the celebration cake a little more palatable!

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

FEATURED ARTICLE:

The New York Times

U.S. to End Coverage Under Health Care Law for Tens of Thousands

By ROBERT PEAR SEPT. 15, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Monday that it planned to terminate health insurance for 115,000 people on Oct. 1 because they had failed to prove that they were United States citizens or legal immigrants eligible for coverage under the Affordable Care Act. It also told 363,000 people that they could lose financial aid because their incomes could not be verified.

The 115,000 people “will lose their coverage as of Sept. 30,” said Andrew M. Slavitt, the No. 2 official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the federal insurance marketplace.

Some of them may be able to have their coverage reinstated retroactively if they produce the documents that they were repeatedly asked to provide in recent months, Mr. Slavitt said.

At the end of May, the administration said, 966,000 people were found to have discrepancies in their immigration and citizenship records. Most sent in documents as requested. In mid-August, the administration sent letters to about 310,000 people who had failed to respond. They were supposed to submit documents by Sept. 5, but the 115,000 consumers failed to do so, Mr. Slavitt said.

Many consumers and lawyers who work with them said that they had tried to submit immigration and citizenship papers, but that they experienced problems transmitting documents through HealthCare.gov. Other people said they sent the documents by mail to a federal contractor in Kentucky but never heard back from the contractor or the government.

“We heard from lots of consumers who told us they sent in their documents multiple times or tried to upload them through HealthCare.gov,” said Mara Youdelman, a lawyer at the National Health Law Program, an advocacy group for low-income people.

Jenny Rejeske, a health policy analyst at the National Immigration Law Center, which represents immigrants, said: “It is unduly harsh to terminate coverage while there are still technical problems with the federal system for verifying citizenship and immigration status. And there has not been adequate notice to people who speak languages other than English and Spanish.”

Florida leads the list of states whose residents are losing coverage because of immigration and citizenship issues, with 35,100. Federal officials said they were ending coverage for 19,600 people in Texas, 6,300 in Georgia, 5,300 in North Carolina, 5,200 in Pennsylvania, 4,000 in Illinois and 2,400 in New Jersey. The numbers released on Monday are for 36 states using the federal insurance marketplace. They do not include terminations in California, New York and other states running their own insurance exchanges.

Federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance are a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act. More than eight out of 10 people who selected health plans through the exchanges from October through mid-April were eligible for subsidies, including income tax credits. But in many cases, the government could not verify the incomes people reported when they applied for subsidized insurance.

This does not mean that they provided false information or were ineligible for assistance. The government tried to verify incomes by checking 2012 tax return information, but consumers may have switched jobs or received pay raises since filing those returns. As a result, officials said, the information in their applications may not match the data in federal files or in sources available to the government.

Mr. Slavitt said that on May 30 there were roughly 1.2 million households (and a total of 1.6 million people) with “data-matching issues.”

Since then, the government said, it has closed cases for 467,000 households with data discrepancies, and 430,000 cases are “currently in the process of being resolved.”

“There are still about 279,000 households with unresolved income-related data-matching issues that haven’t sent in supporting information, representing 363,000 individuals,” Mr. Slavitt said. They will soon receive letters from the government asking for proof of income, and if they do not reply by Sept. 30, they may lose some or all of their subsidies.

They would still be eligible for coverage, but in many cases could not afford it. In some cases, they would also have to repay some or all of the subsidies they received.

It is also possible that some people could receive larger subsidies if their incomes are lower than what they expected when they applied.

(A version of this article appears in print on September 16, 2014, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. to End Coverage Under Health Care Law for Tens of Thousands.)

http://allplaninsurance.com

http://thewoodlandstxhealthinsurance.com