A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld the most contentious provision of the health-care overhaul law, ruling that Congress can require Americans to carry insurance coverage.
In backing the individual mandate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati became the first appellate court to rule on President Obama's signature domestic initiative. The decision also marked the first time a Republican-appointed judge has sided with the administration in evaluating the law's constitutionality.
"We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause," Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr., a Democratic appointee, wrote for the majority. He was joined by Republican appointee Jeffrey Sutton.
The 2 to 1 ruling was hailed by the Justice Department and administration allies, who called it an important bipartisan test of the law's ability to withstand numerous legal challenges. Opponents of the health-care act disputed the ruling's significance, calling it one incremental step in a legal struggle widely expected to wind up at the Supreme Court.
"It's an unfortunate decision," said David Rivkin, a lawyer representing 26 states in a Florida-based lawsuit that also challenges the law. "By the time this gets to the Supreme Court, it's not going to matter which decision was first or second," added Rivkin, who predicted that the law will be overturned.
The differing interpretations reflected the deep divisions over a measure that has provoked vehement opposition and equally strong support among the public and politicians alike. More than 30 lawsuits have been filed since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was pushed through Congress by Democrats in March 2010, resulting in several rulings by lower-court judges that, until now, have cleaved along partisan lines.
As a result, the ultimate fate of the statute, which aims to bring about the broadest changes to the nation's health-care system in several decades, may not be known for a year or more. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the 6th Circuit case said they will appeal directly to the Supreme Court but acknowledged that the justices probably will not take the case right away.
Most contested provision
The health-care law seeks to extend medical coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans and make major changes in public and private health insurance. By far the most contested provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to purchase at least a minimum level of health insurance starting in 2014 and imposes a tax penalty if they don't.
Like other legal challenges, the lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center - a Christian-oriented law firm in Michigan - says Congress overstepped its constitutional authority to regulate commerce.
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit disagreed. The mandate is constitutional, Martin wrote, because "Congress had a rational basis to believe" that the provision would affect interstate commerce and that it was "essential" to the law's broader goals of reforming the health-care market.
Judge James Graham, a Republican appointee, dissented, but it was the concurrence of Sutton - a George W. Bush appointee and former law clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - that was most noteworthy.
Sutton wrote that "the government has the better of the arguments" and that "Congress did not exceed its power" in passing the individual mandate. But he also appeared to acknowledge that his word would not be final, writing, "The Supreme Court has considerable discretion in resolving this dispute."
And in a phrase that heartened conservative opponents of the law, Sutton questioned whether the legislation will have other, perhaps unintended, consequences. "That brings me to the lingering intuition - shared by most Americans, I suspect - that Congress should not be able to compel citizens to buy products they do not want," he wrote.
"If Congress can require Americans to buy medical insurance today, what of tomorrow? Could it compel individuals to buy health care itself in the form of an annual check-up or for that matter a health-club membership?"
Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said that the government welcomed the ruling "and its finding that Congress acted within its authority in passing this landmark health-care reform law." She vowed that the department will continue to "vigorously defend" the law and said department officials believe that efforts to challenge it will fail.
Her words were echoed by a variety of Democrats and supporters of the law.
"Congress clearly has the authority to regulate the health insurance market, including protecting consumers from insurance industry abuses," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now. "Every step of the way, the health-care debate has been polluted by partisan politics. Today's decision, made by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, is immune to that criticism."
No 'ringing endorsement'
But Rivkin, citing some of the wording in Sutton's concurrence, said the decision is "not at all a ringing endorsement of the constitutionality of the individual mandate." And David Yerushalmi, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center, said that while the ruling was "disappointing," Sutton "essentially kicked this thing upstairs to the Supreme Court."
Yerushalmi said he is already drafting a petition asking the high court to hear the case, though he acknowledged that the justices will probably "put it aside" until other appellate court decisions are issued.
Two other federal appellate courts - the Richmond-based 4th Circuit and the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta - recently heard oral arguments in lawsuits challenging various aspects of the health-care law's constitutionality, and they are expected to issue decisions in the coming weeks or months. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for September.
Three U.S. district judges have ruled in favor of the administration on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, while two district court judges have said it is unconstitutional. Those decisions were all along partisan lines, with Democratic-appointed judges supporting the administration and Republican appointees opposing it.
Showing posts with label new health care bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new health care bill. Show all posts
Friday, July 1, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Health Reform Weekly
Specifically, the bill would establish an entirely new tax on health insurance claims as a way to match federal Medicaid funding. The 1 percent on tax on all medical claims paid under health, dental, automobile and workers' compensation coverage would impact fully and self-insured business. Ultimately, the cost of the tax will be borne by the sponsor of that coverage – the employer or the individual who already pays for the coverage. As introduced, the tax would begin on October 1, 2011.
While working with lawmakers to help them understand the impact the tax would have on constituents, Aetna has mobilized its grassroots employee network to contact their state legislators regarding the issue. The bill has a strong chance of passing, and Aetna is urging all its constituents in the state to contact the Governor’s office and legislators to express any concerns they may have about the tax.
This would be a good time to contact your local and state representatives opposing this legislation and avoiding additional increases in insurance premiums.
Week of June 6, 2011
While the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) medical loss ratio (MLR) and rate review provisions have been getting most of the media attention, a new coalition of business organizations has come together to draw attention to another important requirement of the ACA. Calling themselves Stop the HIT on Small Business, more than 25 national business organizations have joined forces to work toward repeal of new taxes the ACA would impose on private health insurance starting in 2014. Business leaders behind the effort say that small business owners, their employees and the self-employed will ultimately bear the brunt of $87 billion in additional health care costs in the first 10 years as a result of the new taxes. The group is planning Capitol Hill outreaches and grassroots efforts.
Please keep in mind, these are increases in taxes above those called for in the Health Care Reform Act already made law.
Friday, November 12, 2010
What is considered a rescission?
On June 22, 2010, the Departments of the Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services ("HHS") released interim final regulations for group health plans and health insurance coverage relating to status as a preexisting conditions, lifetime and annual limits, rescissions, and patient protections under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Affordable Care Act"). These regulations are under Section 9815(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code ("Code"), Section 715(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and Section XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (26 CFR 54.9815-2704T,2711T, 2712T, and 2719AT, 29 CFR 2590.715-2704, 2711, 2112, and 2719A and 45 CFR 147.108, 126, 128 and 138, The following will summarize the provisions of the regulations.
Prohibitions on Preexisting Condition Exclusions
Group health plans and insurance companies will be prohibited from excluding individuals from coverage on the basis of any pre-existing condition exclusion. This rule will apply with respect to enrollees under the age of 19 for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. For enrollees age 19 and over, the prohibition will apply for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. This prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions will also apply to grandfathered health plans. In addition, a blanket prohibition is created on pre-existing condition exclusions for all individual insurance policies and employer plans.
What is not considered a Preexisting Condition? These regulations make it clear the prohibition applies not just an exclusion of coverage of specific benefits associated with a preexisting condition in the case of a participant, but a complete exclusion from such plan or coverage, if that exclusion is based on a preexisting condition. These regulations do not prohibit a plan or a policy from excluding benefits if the exclusion applies regardless of when the condition arose relative to the effective date of coverage. Such exclusion will not be considered excluding a preexisting condition.
Lifetime and Annual Limits
Group health plans, and insurance companies are also prohibited from providing coverage that contains a lifetime limitation on the dollar value of "essential health benefits" for any participant or beneficiary. Similarly, group health plans and insurance companies are prohibited from imposing annual limitations on the dollar value of "essential health benefits" to any participant or beneficiary. This provision is otherwise applicable for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, and it will apply to grandfathered health plans. Prior to January 1, 2014, however, a group health plan is free to establish a "restricted annual limit" on the dollar value of an individual's benefits that are part of "essential health benefits" as determined by HHS. Additionally, group health plans and insurance companies will remain free to impose either lifetime or annual limits on benefits that will not constitute "essential health benefits."
Additionally, group health plans and insurance companies will remain free to impose either lifetime or annual limits on benefits that will not constitute "essential health benefits."
What are Essential Health Benefits? The regulations define "essential health benefits" by referencing Section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act, but do provide any detail. Regulations on Section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act have not been released. However, Section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act provides that these items must be included:
*Ambulatory patient services.
*Emergency services.
*Hospitalization.
*Maternity and newborn care.
*Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
*Prescription drugs.
*Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
*Laboratory services.
*Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
*Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
What Plans are excluded? Certain account-based plans are exempt from the restriction on annual limits. Health Flexible Spending Accounts, Medical Savings Accounts and Health Savings Accounts are specifically exempt. Health Reimbursement Accounts ("HRA") are specifically exempt if they are integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan. The regulations also exempt retiree-only HRAs. The regulations reserve judgment on standalone HRAs.
Are full exclusions of conditions still possible? The regulations clarify that the prohibitions from providing coverage that contain a lifetime limitation on the dollar value of "essential health benefits" does not prevent a plan or an insurance company from excluding all benefits for a condition, but if any benefits are provided for a condition, then all of the requirements will apply. An exclusion of all benefit for a condition is not considered to be an annual or lifetime dollar limit.
What are the limits on "restricted annual limits"? In order to mitigate the potential for premium increases for all plans and policies, while at the same time ensuring access to "essential health benefits", the regulations adopt a three-year phased approach for restricted annual limits. Under these regulations, annual limits on the dollar value of benefits that are "essential health benefits" may not be less than the following amounts for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning before January 1, 2014:
*For plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 but before September 23, 2011, $750,000;
* For plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2011 but before September 23, 2012, $1.25 million; and
* For plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2012 but before January 1, 2014, $2 million.
As these are minimums for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning before 2014, plans or insurance companies may use higher annual limits or impose no limits. Plans and policies with plan or policy years that begin between September 23 and December 31 have more than one plan or policy year under which the $2 million minimum annual limit is available; however, a plan or policy generally may not impose an annual limit for a plan year (in the individual market, policy year) beginning after December 31, 2013.
How do these limits apply? The minimum annual limits for plan or policy years beginning before 2014 apply on an individual-by-individual basis. Thus, any overall annual dollar limit on benefits applied to families may not operate to deny a covered individual the minimum annual benefits for the plan year (in the individual market, policy year). These interim final regulations clarify that, in applying annual limits for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning before January 1, 2014, the plan or health insurance coverage may take into account only "essential health benefits".
How do these restricted annual limits apply to mini-med plans? The restricted annual limits provided in these regulations are designed to ensure, in the vast majority of cases, that individuals would have access to needed services with a minimal impact on premiums. So that individuals with certain coverage, including coverage under a limited benefit plan or so-called "mini-med" plans, would not be denied access to needed services or experience more than a minimal impact on premiums, these regulations provide for HHS to establish a program under which the requirements relating to restricted annual limits may be waived if compliance with these regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums. Guidance from HHS regarding the scope and process for applying for a waiver is expected to be issued in the near future.
Is there a new notice requirement for those who now eligible because of the repeal of life time limits? These regulations also provide that individuals who reached a lifetime limit under a plan or health insurance coverage prior to the issuance of these regulations and are otherwise still eligible under the plan or health insurance coverage must be provided with a notice that the lifetime limit no longer applies. If such individuals are no longer enrolled in the plan or health insurance coverage, the employer's plan or insurance company must provide an enrollment (in the individual market, reinstatement) opportunity for such individuals. In the individual market, this reinstatement opportunity does not apply to individuals who reached their lifetime limits on individual health insurance coverage if the contract is not renewed or otherwise is no longer in effect. It would apply, however, to a family member who reached the lifetime limit in a family policy in the individual market while other family members remain in the coverage. These notices and the enrollment opportunity must be provided beginning not later than the first day of the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) beginning on or after September 23, 2010. Anyone eligible for an enrollment opportunity must be treated as a special enrollee. This means that they must be given the right to enroll in all of the benefit packages available to similarly situated individuals upon initial enrollment.
Prohibition on Rescission
Group health plans and insurance companies will generally be prohibited from rescinding coverage with respect to an enrollee once such enrollee is covered. The exceptions will be for fraud or intentional misrepresentation by the enrollee, nonpayment of premiums, termination of the plan, or loss of eligibility. This standard applies to all rescissions, whether in the group or individual insurance market, and whether for insured or self-insured coverage. These rules also apply regardless of any contestability period that may otherwise apply. This new rule is effective for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, and will apply to grandfathered health plans.
How do these new standards apply? These regulations include several clarifications regarding the standards for rescission. First, these regulations clarify that these rescission rules apply whether the rescission applies to a single individual, an individual within a family, or an entire group of individuals. Thus, for example, if an insurance company attempted to rescind coverage of an entire employment-based group because of the actions of an individual within the group, the standards of these regulations would apply. Second, these regulations clarify that these rescission rules apply to representations made by the individual or a person seeking coverage on behalf of the individual. Thus, if a plan sponsor seeks coverage from an insurance company for an entire employment-based group and makes representations, for example, regarding the prior claims experience of the group, the standards of these regulations would also apply.
What is fraud? These regulations clarify that, to the extent that an omission constitutes fraud, that omission would permit the plan or issuer to rescind coverage under this section. An example in these interim final regulations illustrates the application of the rule to misstatements of fact that are inadvertent.
What is considered a rescission? For purposes of these regulations, a rescission is a cancellation or discontinuance of coverage that has retroactive effect. For example, a cancellation that treats a policy as void from the time of the individual's or group's enrollment is a rescission. As another example, a cancellation that voids benefits paid up to a year before the cancellation is also a rescission for this purpose. A cancellation or discontinuance of coverage with only a prospective effect is not a rescission, and neither is a cancellation or discontinuance of coverage that is effective retroactively to the extent it is attributable to a failure to timely pay required premiums or contributions towards the cost of coverage.
When coverage is rescinded, must advance notice be sent? In addition to setting a new Federal floor standard for rescissions, the new law also adds a new advance notice requirement when coverage is rescinded where still permissible. Specifically, the new law provides that coverage may not be cancelled unless prior notice is provided. These regulations provide that a group health plan, or insurance company offering group health insurance coverage, must provide at least 30 calendar days advance notice to an individual before coverage may be rescinded. The notice must be provided regardless of whether the rescission is of group or individual coverage; or whether, in the case of group coverage, the coverage is insured or self-insured, or the rescission applies to an entire group or only to an individual within the group. This 30-day period will provide individuals and plan sponsors with an opportunity to explore their rights to contest the rescission, or look for alternative coverage, as appropriate.
Patient Protections
Group health plans and insurance companies will be subject to several "patient protection" requirements. A plan that requires the designation of a participating primary care provider will be required to allow participants to choose any such provider who is available (including the choice of a pediatric specialist as the primary care provider for a child). Additionally, group health plans that cover emergency services will be required to cover such services without the need for prior authorization and without regard to any term or condition of the coverage, or whether the provider participates in such plan. Group health plans also will not be able to require authorization or a referral before a female participant/beneficiary could seek obstetrical or gynecological care from a professional specializing in such care. These requirements will be effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, but will not apply to grandfathered health plans.
Choice of Health Care Professional: Under these regulations, the plan or insurance company must provide a notice informing each participant (or in the individual market, the primary subscriber) of the terms of the plan or health insurance coverage regarding designation of a primary care provider. Accordingly, these regulations require such plans and insurance companies to provide a notice to participants (in the individual market, primary subscribers) of these rights when applicable. Model language is provided in these regulations. The notice must be provided whenever the plan or insurance company provides a participant with a summary plan description or other similar description of benefits under the plan or health insurance coverage, or in the individual market, provides a primary subscriber with a policy, certificate, or contract of health insurance. The following model language can be used to satisfy this disclosure requirement:
(A) For plans and issuers that require or allow for the designation of primary care providers by participants or beneficiaries, insert:
[Name of group health plan or health insurance issuer] generally [requires/allows] the designation of a primary care provider. You have the right to designate any primary care provider who participates in our network and who is available to accept you or your family members. [If the plan or health insurance coverage designates a primary care provider automatically, insert: Until you make this designation, [name of group health plan or health insurance issuer] designates one for you.] For information on how to select a primary care provider, and for a list of the participating primary care providers, contact the [plan administrator or issuer] at [insert contact information].
(B) For plans and issuers that require or allow for the designation of a primary care provider for a child, add:
For children, you may designate a pediatrician as the primary care provider.
(C) For plans and issuers that provide coverage for obstetric or gynecological care and require the designation by a participant or beneficiary of a primary care provider, add:
You do not need prior authorization from [name of group health plan or issuer] or from any other person (including a primary care provider) in order to obtain access to obstetrical or gynecological care from a health care professional in our network who specializes in obstetrics or gynecology. The health care professional, however, may be required to comply with certain procedures, including obtaining prior authorization for certain services, following a pre-approved treatment plan, or procedures for making referrals. For a list of participating health care professionals who specialize in obstetrics or gynecology, contact the [plan administrator or issuer] at [insert contact information].
Emergency Services: These regulations require that a plan or health insurance coverage providing emergency services must do so without the individual or the health care provider having to obtain prior authorization (even if the emergency services are provided out of network) and without regard to whether the health care provider furnishing the emergency services is an in-network provider with respect to the services. The emergency services must be provided without regard to any other term or condition of the plan or health insurance coverage other than the exclusion or coordination of benefits, an affiliation or permitted waiting period applicable or cost-sharing requirements. For a plan or health insurance coverage with a network of providers that provides benefits for emergency services, the plan or insurance company may not impose any administrative requirement or limitation on benefits for out-of-network emergency services that is more restrictive than the requirements or limitations that apply to in-network emergency services.
Cost-sharing requirements expressed as a copayment amount or coinsurance rate imposed for out-of-network emergency services cannot exceed the cost-sharing requirements that would be imposed if the services were provided in-network. Out-of-network providers may, however, also balance bill patients for the difference between the providers' charges and the amount collected from the plan or issuer and from the patient in the form of a copayment or coinsurance amount. The Affordable Care Act excludes such balance billing amounts from the definition of cost sharing, and the requirement that cost sharing for out-of-network services be limited to that imposed in network only applies to cost sharing expressed as a copayment or coinsurance rate.
Because the Affordable Care Act does not require plans or issuers to cover balance billing amounts, and does not prohibit balance billing, even where the protections in the statute apply, patients may be subject to balance billing.
To avoid the circumvention of these new protections, it is necessary that a reasonable amount be paid before a patient becomes responsible for a balance billing amount. Thus, these regulations require that a reasonable amount be paid for services by some objective standard. In establishing the reasonable amount that must be paid, a wide variation had to bet taken into account in how plans and insurance companies determine both in-network and out-of network rates. Accordingly, these regulations consider three amounts: the in-network rate, the out-of-network rate, and the Medicare rate. Specifically, a plan or issuer satisfies the copayment and coinsurance limitations in the law if it provides benefits for out-of-network emergency services in an amount equal to the greatest of three possible amounts:
1) The amount negotiated with in-network providers for the emergency service furnished;
2) The amount for the emergency service calculated using the same method the plan generally uses to determine payments for out-of-network services (such as the usual, customary, and reasonable charges) but substituting the in-network cost-sharing provisions for the out-of-network cost-sharing provisions; or
3) The amount that would be paid under Medicare for the emergency service.
Each of these three amounts is calculated excluding any in-network copayment or coinsurance imposed with respect to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee.
In applying the rules relating to emergency services, the law and these regulations define the terms emergency medical condition, emergency services, and stabilize. These terms are defined generally in accordance with their meaning under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ("EMTALA"), section 1867 of the Social Security Act. There are, however, some minor variances from the EMTALA definitions. For example, both EMTALA and PHS Act section 2719A define "emergency medical condition" in terms of the same consequences that could reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of immediate medical attention. Under EMTALA regulations, the likelihood of these consequences is determined by qualified hospital medical personnel, while under the new law the standard is whether a prudent layperson, who possesses an average knowledge of health and medicine, could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in such consequences.
Prohibitions on Preexisting Condition Exclusions
Group health plans and insurance companies will be prohibited from excluding individuals from coverage on the basis of any pre-existing condition exclusion. This rule will apply with respect to enrollees under the age of 19 for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. For enrollees age 19 and over, the prohibition will apply for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. This prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions will also apply to grandfathered health plans. In addition, a blanket prohibition is created on pre-existing condition exclusions for all individual insurance policies and employer plans.
What is not considered a Preexisting Condition? These regulations make it clear the prohibition applies not just an exclusion of coverage of specific benefits associated with a preexisting condition in the case of a participant, but a complete exclusion from such plan or coverage, if that exclusion is based on a preexisting condition. These regulations do not prohibit a plan or a policy from excluding benefits if the exclusion applies regardless of when the condition arose relative to the effective date of coverage. Such exclusion will not be considered excluding a preexisting condition.
Lifetime and Annual Limits
Group health plans, and insurance companies are also prohibited from providing coverage that contains a lifetime limitation on the dollar value of "essential health benefits" for any participant or beneficiary. Similarly, group health plans and insurance companies are prohibited from imposing annual limitations on the dollar value of "essential health benefits" to any participant or beneficiary. This provision is otherwise applicable for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, and it will apply to grandfathered health plans. Prior to January 1, 2014, however, a group health plan is free to establish a "restricted annual limit" on the dollar value of an individual's benefits that are part of "essential health benefits" as determined by HHS. Additionally, group health plans and insurance companies will remain free to impose either lifetime or annual limits on benefits that will not constitute "essential health benefits."
Additionally, group health plans and insurance companies will remain free to impose either lifetime or annual limits on benefits that will not constitute "essential health benefits."
What are Essential Health Benefits? The regulations define "essential health benefits" by referencing Section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act, but do provide any detail. Regulations on Section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act have not been released. However, Section 1302(b) of the Affordable Care Act provides that these items must be included:
*Ambulatory patient services.
*Emergency services.
*Hospitalization.
*Maternity and newborn care.
*Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
*Prescription drugs.
*Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
*Laboratory services.
*Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
*Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
What Plans are excluded? Certain account-based plans are exempt from the restriction on annual limits. Health Flexible Spending Accounts, Medical Savings Accounts and Health Savings Accounts are specifically exempt. Health Reimbursement Accounts ("HRA") are specifically exempt if they are integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan. The regulations also exempt retiree-only HRAs. The regulations reserve judgment on standalone HRAs.
Are full exclusions of conditions still possible? The regulations clarify that the prohibitions from providing coverage that contain a lifetime limitation on the dollar value of "essential health benefits" does not prevent a plan or an insurance company from excluding all benefits for a condition, but if any benefits are provided for a condition, then all of the requirements will apply. An exclusion of all benefit for a condition is not considered to be an annual or lifetime dollar limit.
What are the limits on "restricted annual limits"? In order to mitigate the potential for premium increases for all plans and policies, while at the same time ensuring access to "essential health benefits", the regulations adopt a three-year phased approach for restricted annual limits. Under these regulations, annual limits on the dollar value of benefits that are "essential health benefits" may not be less than the following amounts for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning before January 1, 2014:
*For plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 but before September 23, 2011, $750,000;
* For plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2011 but before September 23, 2012, $1.25 million; and
* For plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2012 but before January 1, 2014, $2 million.
As these are minimums for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning before 2014, plans or insurance companies may use higher annual limits or impose no limits. Plans and policies with plan or policy years that begin between September 23 and December 31 have more than one plan or policy year under which the $2 million minimum annual limit is available; however, a plan or policy generally may not impose an annual limit for a plan year (in the individual market, policy year) beginning after December 31, 2013.
How do these limits apply? The minimum annual limits for plan or policy years beginning before 2014 apply on an individual-by-individual basis. Thus, any overall annual dollar limit on benefits applied to families may not operate to deny a covered individual the minimum annual benefits for the plan year (in the individual market, policy year). These interim final regulations clarify that, in applying annual limits for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning before January 1, 2014, the plan or health insurance coverage may take into account only "essential health benefits".
How do these restricted annual limits apply to mini-med plans? The restricted annual limits provided in these regulations are designed to ensure, in the vast majority of cases, that individuals would have access to needed services with a minimal impact on premiums. So that individuals with certain coverage, including coverage under a limited benefit plan or so-called "mini-med" plans, would not be denied access to needed services or experience more than a minimal impact on premiums, these regulations provide for HHS to establish a program under which the requirements relating to restricted annual limits may be waived if compliance with these regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums. Guidance from HHS regarding the scope and process for applying for a waiver is expected to be issued in the near future.
Is there a new notice requirement for those who now eligible because of the repeal of life time limits? These regulations also provide that individuals who reached a lifetime limit under a plan or health insurance coverage prior to the issuance of these regulations and are otherwise still eligible under the plan or health insurance coverage must be provided with a notice that the lifetime limit no longer applies. If such individuals are no longer enrolled in the plan or health insurance coverage, the employer's plan or insurance company must provide an enrollment (in the individual market, reinstatement) opportunity for such individuals. In the individual market, this reinstatement opportunity does not apply to individuals who reached their lifetime limits on individual health insurance coverage if the contract is not renewed or otherwise is no longer in effect. It would apply, however, to a family member who reached the lifetime limit in a family policy in the individual market while other family members remain in the coverage. These notices and the enrollment opportunity must be provided beginning not later than the first day of the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) beginning on or after September 23, 2010. Anyone eligible for an enrollment opportunity must be treated as a special enrollee. This means that they must be given the right to enroll in all of the benefit packages available to similarly situated individuals upon initial enrollment.
Prohibition on Rescission
Group health plans and insurance companies will generally be prohibited from rescinding coverage with respect to an enrollee once such enrollee is covered. The exceptions will be for fraud or intentional misrepresentation by the enrollee, nonpayment of premiums, termination of the plan, or loss of eligibility. This standard applies to all rescissions, whether in the group or individual insurance market, and whether for insured or self-insured coverage. These rules also apply regardless of any contestability period that may otherwise apply. This new rule is effective for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, and will apply to grandfathered health plans.
How do these new standards apply? These regulations include several clarifications regarding the standards for rescission. First, these regulations clarify that these rescission rules apply whether the rescission applies to a single individual, an individual within a family, or an entire group of individuals. Thus, for example, if an insurance company attempted to rescind coverage of an entire employment-based group because of the actions of an individual within the group, the standards of these regulations would apply. Second, these regulations clarify that these rescission rules apply to representations made by the individual or a person seeking coverage on behalf of the individual. Thus, if a plan sponsor seeks coverage from an insurance company for an entire employment-based group and makes representations, for example, regarding the prior claims experience of the group, the standards of these regulations would also apply.
What is fraud? These regulations clarify that, to the extent that an omission constitutes fraud, that omission would permit the plan or issuer to rescind coverage under this section. An example in these interim final regulations illustrates the application of the rule to misstatements of fact that are inadvertent.
What is considered a rescission? For purposes of these regulations, a rescission is a cancellation or discontinuance of coverage that has retroactive effect. For example, a cancellation that treats a policy as void from the time of the individual's or group's enrollment is a rescission. As another example, a cancellation that voids benefits paid up to a year before the cancellation is also a rescission for this purpose. A cancellation or discontinuance of coverage with only a prospective effect is not a rescission, and neither is a cancellation or discontinuance of coverage that is effective retroactively to the extent it is attributable to a failure to timely pay required premiums or contributions towards the cost of coverage.
When coverage is rescinded, must advance notice be sent? In addition to setting a new Federal floor standard for rescissions, the new law also adds a new advance notice requirement when coverage is rescinded where still permissible. Specifically, the new law provides that coverage may not be cancelled unless prior notice is provided. These regulations provide that a group health plan, or insurance company offering group health insurance coverage, must provide at least 30 calendar days advance notice to an individual before coverage may be rescinded. The notice must be provided regardless of whether the rescission is of group or individual coverage; or whether, in the case of group coverage, the coverage is insured or self-insured, or the rescission applies to an entire group or only to an individual within the group. This 30-day period will provide individuals and plan sponsors with an opportunity to explore their rights to contest the rescission, or look for alternative coverage, as appropriate.
Patient Protections
Group health plans and insurance companies will be subject to several "patient protection" requirements. A plan that requires the designation of a participating primary care provider will be required to allow participants to choose any such provider who is available (including the choice of a pediatric specialist as the primary care provider for a child). Additionally, group health plans that cover emergency services will be required to cover such services without the need for prior authorization and without regard to any term or condition of the coverage, or whether the provider participates in such plan. Group health plans also will not be able to require authorization or a referral before a female participant/beneficiary could seek obstetrical or gynecological care from a professional specializing in such care. These requirements will be effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, but will not apply to grandfathered health plans.
Choice of Health Care Professional: Under these regulations, the plan or insurance company must provide a notice informing each participant (or in the individual market, the primary subscriber) of the terms of the plan or health insurance coverage regarding designation of a primary care provider. Accordingly, these regulations require such plans and insurance companies to provide a notice to participants (in the individual market, primary subscribers) of these rights when applicable. Model language is provided in these regulations. The notice must be provided whenever the plan or insurance company provides a participant with a summary plan description or other similar description of benefits under the plan or health insurance coverage, or in the individual market, provides a primary subscriber with a policy, certificate, or contract of health insurance. The following model language can be used to satisfy this disclosure requirement:
(A) For plans and issuers that require or allow for the designation of primary care providers by participants or beneficiaries, insert:
[Name of group health plan or health insurance issuer] generally [requires/allows] the designation of a primary care provider. You have the right to designate any primary care provider who participates in our network and who is available to accept you or your family members. [If the plan or health insurance coverage designates a primary care provider automatically, insert: Until you make this designation, [name of group health plan or health insurance issuer] designates one for you.] For information on how to select a primary care provider, and for a list of the participating primary care providers, contact the [plan administrator or issuer] at [insert contact information].
(B) For plans and issuers that require or allow for the designation of a primary care provider for a child, add:
For children, you may designate a pediatrician as the primary care provider.
(C) For plans and issuers that provide coverage for obstetric or gynecological care and require the designation by a participant or beneficiary of a primary care provider, add:
You do not need prior authorization from [name of group health plan or issuer] or from any other person (including a primary care provider) in order to obtain access to obstetrical or gynecological care from a health care professional in our network who specializes in obstetrics or gynecology. The health care professional, however, may be required to comply with certain procedures, including obtaining prior authorization for certain services, following a pre-approved treatment plan, or procedures for making referrals. For a list of participating health care professionals who specialize in obstetrics or gynecology, contact the [plan administrator or issuer] at [insert contact information].
Emergency Services: These regulations require that a plan or health insurance coverage providing emergency services must do so without the individual or the health care provider having to obtain prior authorization (even if the emergency services are provided out of network) and without regard to whether the health care provider furnishing the emergency services is an in-network provider with respect to the services. The emergency services must be provided without regard to any other term or condition of the plan or health insurance coverage other than the exclusion or coordination of benefits, an affiliation or permitted waiting period applicable or cost-sharing requirements. For a plan or health insurance coverage with a network of providers that provides benefits for emergency services, the plan or insurance company may not impose any administrative requirement or limitation on benefits for out-of-network emergency services that is more restrictive than the requirements or limitations that apply to in-network emergency services.
Cost-sharing requirements expressed as a copayment amount or coinsurance rate imposed for out-of-network emergency services cannot exceed the cost-sharing requirements that would be imposed if the services were provided in-network. Out-of-network providers may, however, also balance bill patients for the difference between the providers' charges and the amount collected from the plan or issuer and from the patient in the form of a copayment or coinsurance amount. The Affordable Care Act excludes such balance billing amounts from the definition of cost sharing, and the requirement that cost sharing for out-of-network services be limited to that imposed in network only applies to cost sharing expressed as a copayment or coinsurance rate.
Because the Affordable Care Act does not require plans or issuers to cover balance billing amounts, and does not prohibit balance billing, even where the protections in the statute apply, patients may be subject to balance billing.
To avoid the circumvention of these new protections, it is necessary that a reasonable amount be paid before a patient becomes responsible for a balance billing amount. Thus, these regulations require that a reasonable amount be paid for services by some objective standard. In establishing the reasonable amount that must be paid, a wide variation had to bet taken into account in how plans and insurance companies determine both in-network and out-of network rates. Accordingly, these regulations consider three amounts: the in-network rate, the out-of-network rate, and the Medicare rate. Specifically, a plan or issuer satisfies the copayment and coinsurance limitations in the law if it provides benefits for out-of-network emergency services in an amount equal to the greatest of three possible amounts:
1) The amount negotiated with in-network providers for the emergency service furnished;
2) The amount for the emergency service calculated using the same method the plan generally uses to determine payments for out-of-network services (such as the usual, customary, and reasonable charges) but substituting the in-network cost-sharing provisions for the out-of-network cost-sharing provisions; or
3) The amount that would be paid under Medicare for the emergency service.
Each of these three amounts is calculated excluding any in-network copayment or coinsurance imposed with respect to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee.
In applying the rules relating to emergency services, the law and these regulations define the terms emergency medical condition, emergency services, and stabilize. These terms are defined generally in accordance with their meaning under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ("EMTALA"), section 1867 of the Social Security Act. There are, however, some minor variances from the EMTALA definitions. For example, both EMTALA and PHS Act section 2719A define "emergency medical condition" in terms of the same consequences that could reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of immediate medical attention. Under EMTALA regulations, the likelihood of these consequences is determined by qualified hospital medical personnel, while under the new law the standard is whether a prudent layperson, who possesses an average knowledge of health and medicine, could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in such consequences.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Affordable Care Act's New Patient's Bill of Rights
A major goal of the Affordable Care Act - the health insurance reform legislation President Obama signed into law on March 23 - is to put American consumers back in charge of their health coverage and care. Insurance companies often leave patients without coverage when they need it the most, causing them to put off needed care, compromising their health and driving up the cost of care when they get it. Too often, insurance companies put insurance company bureaucrats between you and your doctor. The Affordable Care Act cracks down on the some of the most egregious practices of the insurance industry while providing the stability and the flexibility that families and businesses need to make the choices that work best for them.
Today, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and Treasury issued regulations to implement a new Patients Bill of Rights under the Affordable Care Act - which will help children (and eventually all Americans) with pre-existing conditions gain coverage and keep it, protect all Americans' choice of doctors and end lifetime limits on the care consumers may receive. These new protections apply to nearly all health insurance plans.1
How These New Rules Will Help You
* Stop insurance companies from limiting the care you need.
For most plans starting on or after September 23, these rules stop insurance companies from imposing pre-existing condition exclusions on your children; prohibit insurers from rescinding or taking away your coverage based on an unintentional mistake on an application; ban insurers from setting lifetime limits on your coverage; and restrict their use of annual limits on coverage.
* Remove insurance company barriers between you and your doctor. For plans starting on or after September 23, these rules ensure that you can choose the primary care doctor or pediatrician you want from your plan's provider network, and that you can see an OB-GYN without needing a referral. Insurance companies will not be able to require you to get prior approval before seeking emergency care at a hospital outside your plan's network. These protections apply to health plans that are not grandfathered.
Builds On Other Affordable Care Act Policies
These new protections complement other parts of the Affordable Care Act including:
* Reviewing Insurers' Premium Increases. HHS recently offered States $51 million in grant funding to strengthen review of insurance premiums. Annual premium hikes can put insurance out of reach of many working families and small employers. These grants are a down-payment that enable States to act now on reviewing, disclosing, and preventing unreasonable rate hikes. Already, a number of States, including California , New York , Maine , Pennsylvania and others are moving forward to improve their oversight and require more transparency of insurance companies' requests to raise rates.
* Getting the Most from Your Premium Dollars. Beginning in January, the Affordable Care Act requires individual and small group insurers to spend at least 80% and large group insurers to spend at least 85% of your premium dollars on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care you receive - and rebate you the difference if they fall short. This will limit spending on overhead and salaries and bonuses paid to insurance company executives and provide new transparency into how your dollars are spent. Insurers will be required to publicly disclose their rates on a new national consumer website - HealthCare.gov.
* Keeping Young Adults Covered. Starting September 23, children under 26 will be allowed to stay on their parent's family policy, or be added to it. Group health plans that are grandfathered plans can limit this option to adult children that don't have another offer of employment-based coverage. Many insurance companies and employers have agreed to implement this program early, to avoid a gap in coverage for new college graduates and other young adults.
* Providing Affordable Coverage to Americans without Insurance due to Pre-existing Conditions: Starting July 1, Americans locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition can begin enrolling in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). This program offers insurance without medical underwriting to people who have been unable to get it because of a preexisting condition. It ends in 2014, when the ban on insurers refusing to cover adults with pre-existing conditions goes into effect and individuals will have affordable choices through Exchanges - the same choices as members of Congress.
New Consumer Protections Starting As Early As This Fall
The new Patients Bill of Rights regulations detail a set of protections that apply to health coverage starting on or after September 23, 2010, six months after the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. They are:
* No Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children Under Age 19. Each year, thousands of children who were either born with or develop a costly medical condition are denied coverage by insurers. Research has shown that, compared to those with insurance, children who are uninsured are less likely to get critical preventive care including immunizations and well-baby checkups. That leaves them twice as likely to miss school and at much greater risk of hospitalization for avoidable conditions.
* A Texas insurance company denied coverage for a baby born with a heart defect that required surgery. Friends and neighbors rallied around the family to raise the thousands of dollars needed to pay for the surgery and put pressure on the insurer to pay for the needed treatment. A week later the insurer backed off and covered the baby.2
The new regulations will prohibit insurance plans from denying coverage to children based on a pre-existing conditions. This ban includes both benefit limitations (e.g., an insurer or employer health plan refusing to pay for chemotherapy for a child with cancer because the child had the cancer before getting insurance) and outright coverage denials (e.g., when the insurer refuses to offer a policy to the family for the child because of the child's pre-existing medical condition). These protections will apply to all types of insurance except for individual policies that are "grandfathered," and will be extended to Americans of all ages starting in 2014.
* No Arbitrary Rescission's of Insurance Coverage. Right now, insurance companies are able to retroactively cancel your policy when you become sick, if you or your employer made an unintentional mistake on your paperwork.
* In Los Angeles , a woman undergoing chemotherapy had her coverage cancelled by an insurer who insisted her cancer existed before she bought coverage. She faced more than $129,000 in medical bills and was forced to stop chemotherapy for several months after her insurance was rescinded.3
Under the regulations, insurers and plans will be prohibited from rescinding coverage - for individuals or groups of people - except in cases involving fraud or an intentional misrepresentation of material facts. Insurers and plans seeking to rescind coverage must provide at least 30 days advance notice to give people time to appeal. There are no exceptions to this policy.
* No Lifetime Limits on Coverage. Millions of Americans who suffer from costly medical conditions are in danger of having their health insurance coverage vanish when the costs of their treatment hit lifetime limits set by their insurers and plans. These limits can cause the loss of coverage at the very moment when patients need it most. Over 100 million Americans have health coverage that imposes such lifetime limits.
A teenager was diagnosed with an aggressive form of leukemia requiring chemotherapy and a stay in the intensive care unit. He reached his family's plan's $1 million lifetime limit in less than a year. His parents had to turn to the public for help when the hospital informed them it needed either $600,000 in certified insurance or a $500,000 deposit to perform the bone marrow transplant he needed.4
The regulation released today prohibits the use of lifetime limits in all health plans and insurance policies issued or renewed on or after September 23, 2010.
* Restricted Annual Dollar Limits on Coverage. Even more aggressive than lifetime limits are annual dollar limits on what an insurance company will pay for health care. Annual dollar limits are less common than lifetime limits, involving 8 percent of large employer plans, 14 percent of small employer plans, and 19 percent of individual market plans. But for people with medical costs that hit these limits, the consequences can be devastating.
*One study found that 10 percent of cancer patients reached a limit of what insurance would pay for treatment - and a quarter of families of cancer patients used up all or most of their savings on treatment.5
The rules will phase out the use of annual dollar limits over the next three years until 2014 when the Affordable Care Act bans them for most plans. Plans issued or renewed beginning September 23, 2010, will be allowed to set annual limits no lower than $750,000. This minimum limit will be raised to $1.25 million beginning September 23, 2011, and to $2 million beginning on September 23, 2012. These limits apply to all employer plans and all new individual market plans. For plans issued or renewed beginning January 1, 2014, all annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits will be prohibited
Employers and insurers that want to delay complying with these rules will have to win permission from the Federal government by demonstrating that their current annual limits are necessary to prevent a significant loss of coverage or increase in premiums. Limited benefit insurance plans - which are often used by employers to provide benefits to part-time workers - are examples of insurers that might seek this kind of delay. These restricted annual dollar limits apply to all insurance plans except for individual market plans that are grandfathered.
* Protecting Your Choice of Doctors. Being able to choose and keep your doctor is a key principle of the Affordable Care Act, and one that is highly valued by Americans. People who have a regular primary care provider are more than twice as likely to receive recommended preventive care; are less likely to be hospitalized; are more satisfied with the health care system, and have lower costs. Yet, insurance companies don't always make it easy to see the provider you choose. One survey found that three-fourths of OB-GYNs reported that patients needed to return to their primary care physicians for permission to get follow-up care.
The new rules make clear that health plan members are free to designate any available participating primary care provider as their provider. The rules allow parents to choose any available participating pediatrician to be their children's primary care provider. And, they prohibit insurers and employer plans from requiring a referral for obstetrical or gynecological (OB-GYN) care. All of these provisions will improve people's access to needed preventive and routine care, which has been shown to improve the health of those treated and avoid unnecessary health care costs. These policies apply to all individual market and group health insurance plans except those that are grandfathered.
* Removing Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Department Services. Some insurers will only pay for health care provided by a limited number or network of providers - including emergency health care. Others require prior approval before receiving emergency care at hospitals outside of their networks. This could mean financial hardship if you get sick or injured when you are away from home or not near a network hospital.
The new rules make emergency services more accessible to consumers. Health plans and insurers will not be able to charge higher cost-sharing (co payments or coinsurance) for emergency services that are obtained out of a plan's network. The rules also set requirements on how health plans should reimburse out-of-network providers. This policy applies to all individual market and group health plans except those that are grandfathered.
Benefits of Consumer Protections
The new rules will bring immediate relief to many Americans and provide peace of mind to millions more who are only one illness or accident away from medical and financial chaos.
The new ban on lifetime limits would affect group premiums by 0.5% or less and individual market premiums by 0.75% or less. The restricted annual limit policy would affect group and individual markets by roughly 0.1% or less (grandfathered individual market plans are exempt). And, the prohibition of preexisting conditions exclusions for children would affect group health plans by just a few hundredths of a percent. For new plans in the individual market, this impact would be roughly 0.5% in many states. In states with community rating, (roughly twenty states), the impact could be up to 1.0%. These costs are before taking into account benefits.
In addition, the rules will achieve greater cost savings by:
* Reducing the"hidden tax" on insured Americans: By making sure insurance covers people who are most at risk, there will be less uncompensated care and the amount of cost shifting among those who have coverage today will be reduced by up to $1 billion in 2013.
* Improving Americans' health: By making sure that high-risk individuals have insurance, the rules will reduce premature deaths.6 Insured children are less likely to experience avoidable hospital stays than uninsured children7 and, when hospitalized, insured children are at less risk of dying.8
* Protecting Americans' savings: High medical costs contribute to some degree to about half of the more than 500,000 personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007.9 These costs borne by individuals might be assumed by insurance companies once rescission's are banned, annual limits are restricted, lifetime limits are prohibited, and most children have access to health insurance without pre-existing condition exclusions.
* Enhancing workers' productivity: Making sure that kids with health problems have coverage will reduce the number of days parents have to take off from work to care for family members. Parents will also be freed from "job lock," which occurs when people are afraid to take a better job because they might lose coverage for themselves or their families.10
____________________________________________________________________
1 Limits on pre-existing conditions and annual limits will not apply to existing "grandfathered" plans offering individual coverage. For details, see the Fact Sheet and interim final regulations released on the topic on June 14.
2 Jarvis, Jan, "Under Fire, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas Offers to Cover Medical Expenses for Crowley Baby," Houston Star-Telegram, (March 31, 2010).
3 Girion, Lisa "Health Net Ordered to Pay $9 million after Canceling Cancer Patient's Policy," Los Angeles Times (2008), available at: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure23feb23,1,5039339.story
4 Murphy, Tom. "Patients struggle with lifetime health insurance benefit caps," Los Angeles Times, July 2008.
5 See "National Survey of Households Affected by Cancer." (2006) accessed at http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7591.pdf
6 See, for example, Almond, Doyle, Kowalski, Williams (2010), Doyle (2005), and Currie and Gruber (1996).
7 Keane, Christopher et al. "The Impact of Children's Health Insurance Program by Age." Pediatrics 104:5 (1999), available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/104/5/1051 ..
8 Bernstein, Jill et al. "How Does Insurance Coverage Improve Health Outcomes?" Mathematica Policy Research (2010), available: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/Health/Reformhealthcare_IB1.pdf
9 David Himmelstein et al, 2009.
10 Gruber, J. and B. Madrian. "Health Insurance, Labor Supply, and Job Mobility: A Critical Review of the Literature." (2001).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)