State by State Analysis of Health Insurance Exchange Adoption

State By State Analysis of Public Health Service Act Requirements for Employers in the United States

The Public Health Service Act of 2010 requires most employers in the United States to provide group medical insurance for their employees. Employers who choose not to comply with this law will be fined, as authorized in Section 490-H of the Internal Revenue Code. Employers with fifty or more employees are required to offer health insurance to their employees who work, on average, thirty or more hours a week. And the insurance plan must meet certain affordability standards, the employer must pay part of the cost and the plan has to meet certain eligibility requirements for enrollment equity. The global purpose of this act is to increase the proportion of people who have access to health care in the United States.  Evidence of the ability to pay for medical treatment through insurance thus contributes to this goal. The data source for the fifty-state-analysis, came from the National Conference of State Legislatures web site.[1] Also my book, Unraveling U.S. Health Care includes 50-state surveys for health care legislation as well.

Health Insurance Exchanges

Small employers are slated to enroll in regional insurance exchanges by 2014. Large employers may elect to enroll in the exchanges by 2017. The latter is the most intriguing, because initially it is thought that large employers will not choose the insurance exchanges. However, based on my experience as a former insurance broker here are some reasons why employers may ultimately choose insurance exchanges.

1.      1. The insurance exchanges will have federal compliance components built into the design and employers will not have to worry about being fined if they go through that process.

2.      2.  Employers can finance and have their employees enroll in insurance exchange health plans and avoid group health insurance administration hassles by having their employees make individual elections.

3.    3.    The insurance industry will see a shrinking of health care providers over time, especially in some states, so the insurance exchanges will become markets of choice.

4.      4.  Insurance exchanges are slated to include strict criteria for administrative transparency and target levels for allocation of insurance premium contributions to actually pay health care claims(AKA consumers like this)

5.      5.  Applying the law of large numbers, a large association of employers can expect some purchasing power and stability. In any case this is what the insurance industry has been saying for decades.

6.     6.   The insurance exchanges are designed not to discriminate and once again, consumers like that.

States Which Have Authorized Health Insurance Exchanges

Despite the tumultuous cries of calamity about the insurance exchanges, nearly half of the states have already adopted laws to implement them including: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

States Which Have Pending Legislation to Authorize Health Insurance Exchanges

Alaska is working to establish its own insurance exchange. The Georgia governor signed an executive order to authorize a Health Insurance Exchange. Mississippi has a state high risk pool for insurance and it is authorized to serve as a Health Insurance Exchange provider. North Dakota plans to create its own Health Insurance Exchange by 2013, otherwise the federal government will implement one. The Rhode Island governor signed an executive order to create a Health Insurance Exchange on September 19, 2011. The Texas Office of Insurance and the Office of Health & Human Services have partnered together to create its own Health Insurance Exchange. Vermont is working on creating its own state-wide single payer health plan. There are other states with pending legislation, but they were not cited because programs were not yet specified.

States Which Have Outlawed Health Insurance Exchanges

New Hampshire SB 148 became law on July 14, 2011 and it prohibits Health Insurance Exchanges.

It is important to note that a failure to authorize an insurance exchange is not the same as a ban and no other state had banned the exchange as of the end of 2011. Further, nearly all states have accepted money to implement the exchanges, some as much as fifty million dollars, so unless they are planning on giving the money back, they will also be creating their own exchanges.

Exceptions to the Rule

First of all, any employer who wishes to self insurance under the ERISA rules can exempt itself from all of these 2010 insurance plan design requirements. What this basically means is contracting with a third party administrator to pay claims and buying reinsurance through a broker.

Secondarily, the law seeks to provide financial subsidies for small employers who heretofore have had difficulty affording health insurance. This will mean more customers for the profitable insurance industry, which will now benefit by federal government subsidies for customers who are mandated to buy their product.

Thirdly, and perhaps most lucratively, employers who are enrolled or will enroll in “Professional Association Plans” or multiple employer trusts will be able to meet the requirements of the law.  These large employer plans are underwritten and managed by insurance brokerage firms. This is how the large brokerage firms deal with the small business sector; they fit them into their multiple employer association plans.

Though many insurance agents have been whining about the Public Health Services Act, the mandate for this act was promulgated by the insurance industry as a means to avoid obsolescence. Though the national insurance requirement will prove very lucrative for the industry, this does not necessarily mean it will benefit American health care purchasers to the same degree.

This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA, the healthpolicymaven and may be reprinted with her permission.

---

[1] http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/state-actions-to-implement-the-health-benefit-exch.aspx

Congressional Wrangling Over Proposed Insurance Exchanges Takes A Nasty Turn

Wrangling Over Proposed Insurance Exchanges and Standard Health Care Benefits Takes a Nasty Turn

Barely recovering from the last congressional gaffe about redefining the rape of a woman in a transparent attempt to get out from under the federal Hyde Amendment criteria for Medicaid payments, the “powers-that-be” have made another mind blowing error in public engagement. In a nutshell and yes, I do mean all of these puns, here is the latest blunder by the Republicans controlling the house.

In a public hearing for testimony on the federal health insurance exchanges and standardized benefits for primary health care, which includes birth control options as benign as birth control pills, no women were allowed to testify at the hearing. It certainly is curious that those who are actually capable of pregnancy are excluded from the hearing. This refusal was despite vigorous opposition by female congresswomen. I actually listened to the hearing in order to believe it. And the woman they refused to allow to testify about the insurance exchange’s proposed standardized women’s health care was a college student. Yah, that is just what we want to discourage in this country, a woman with an education using prudence in reproductive matters.

And if that isn’t enough to befuddle a rational thinker, the reason the committee chairman gave for denying any woman the right to speak was because the meeting was about voting and safe guarding conscience in decision making. Interesting, I wasn’t aware that women lacked conscience, especially when you look at the violent crime statistics. But then again I guess these boys have turned their eyes away from those statistics. One wonders if they also were party to the move to redefine rape of an unconscious woman as a noncriminal event. If this is a matter of conscience, one wonders about theirs.

We are constantly assailed with Republican blather about fighting against big government, yet they seek to prevent birth control services from being covered on private insurance plans. As I have previously reported, several states already have enacted laws which prevent even private insurance plans from covering birth control services. Here are the members of this hall of shame: Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Idaho, and North Dakota. According to a 2003 Kaiser Foundation survey on contraceptive care, 87% of private employers provided coverage for birth control services, including abortion. So despite the anti-big-government talks, this smacks of big brother to me, or is it daddy?

For more straight talk on health care attend the Northwest Women’s Show on March 2nd, as the healthpolicymaven™ will present findings from her book, Unraveling U.S. Healthcare with my conscience intact.