ACA Bringing Progress to Communities as Programs Mature: 12.7 Million Enroll

Arianrhod

Gold Member
Jul 24, 2015
11,060
1,076
255
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861503?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=127342PX

Posted in its entirety because the site is registration-only:



www.medscape.com

ACA Bringing Progress to Communities as Programs Mature: 12.7 Million Enroll

Kim Krisberg

Nations Health. 2016;46(3):1, 12
Introduction

In 2014, a resident and business owner in El Paso, Texas, met with a marketplace assistor to find affordable health insurance for his children and employees. He was not planning to buy coverage for himself as well, but with a little encouragement and help, he did.

Newly covered, he went for a checkup and his provider found colon cancer. Fortunately, with insurance in hand, he received timely treatment and a promising prognosis. The outcome is good news for the man and his family, but also for the many people he employs through his construction company. Mimi Garcia, MA, MPP, Texas state director for Enroll America, called this the "trickle-down effect" of the Affordable Care Act.

"And we have dozens more stories just like this," Garcia told The Nation's Health. "People who had never had health insurance before or had only been to the doctor when they were acutely ill, who get covered, go for a checkup and it turns out they have heart disease or breast cancer or are on the verge of developing diabetes…In a place like Texas, where so many people had been priced out of insurance coverage, (the ACA) is definitely a life-changer."

While Texas is still the nation's uninsured capital, the state has clocked significant progress since ACA implementation. According to the latest census data, the state's uninsured rate dropped from more than 22 percent in 2013 to about 19 percent in 2014, representing the largest gain in health coverage in Texas since 1999. And Texas is just one of the ACA's evolving success stories. Six years after President Barack Obama signed the ACA into law and three open enrollment periods later, health reform is bringing similar progress to communities across the country: Insurance enrollment numbers continue to climb upward, growth in health care spending has slowed and early research shows the ACA is tied to an increase in the uptake of preventive services.

According to February data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 12.7 million people purchased or were re-enrolled in an insurance plan during the 2015 open enrollment period, either through a state-based marketplace or the federally run marketplace at Healthcare.gov. Of the 9.6 million who purchased coverage through the federal marketplace, about 42 percent were new consumers. And while there was some concern that young, typically healthier populations would not enroll, 2.7 million people ages 18 to 34 signed up for coverage via the federal marketplace during the last enrollment period — an increase from the previous period. Another promising data point: In 2014, the nation's uninsurance rate among children dropped to a historic low of 6 percent.

"The ACA has clearly delivered in terms of coverage and access to coverage so far," said Patrick Willard, health action director at Families USA. "It's been great, especially in states that expanded Medicaid."
Challenges Ahead: Medicaid, Deductibles

Despite its successes, the ACA continues to face challenges, some political and some market-based. Arguably the biggest barrier to reaching the ACA's full coverage potential is opposition to Medicaid eligibility expansion. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of Medicaid expansion without jeopardizing their federal Medicaid funds. As of mid-January, 32 states and Washington, D.C., had expanded Medicaid, three states were considering expansion, and 16 states had not adopted expansion.

In his fiscal year 2017 federal budget proposal, Obama proposed full federal funding for the first three years of Medicaid expansion for states that expand in the future. Under current health reform law, federal funding covers 100 percent of expansion costs between 2014 and 2016 and at least 90 percent thereafter. If Obama's proposal becomes law, states that missed the 2016 cutoff would still receive three years of federal funds to cover the entire cost of expansion.

Willard said Medicaid expansion is critical to reaching much of the nation's remaining uninsured, noting that the current patchwork of Medicaid eligibility standards means a person's location determines their ability to afford insurance. The ACA was written with the assumption that all states would expand Medicaid eligibility up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line; however, the ability to opt out of expansion now means that about 3 million low-income adults fall into a coverage gap in which they do not qualify for Medicaid or for marketplace subsidies.

A February report from Families USA found that expansion states experienced an average 25 percent reduction in the rate of uninsured workers, versus a 13 percent drop in states without expansion. For example, in a state such as Texas, which has not expanded Medicaid, the difference of just $1 per hour in income can determine whether a person falls into the coverage gap or is eligible for insurance subsidies, said Garcia at Enroll America.

"We see this happening a lot and it just feels really unfair," she said. "Without expansion, we'll never be able to get the uninsured rate to the level we want — we'll always be operating with one hand behind our backs."

Sabrina Corlette, JD, project director and research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute, said the coverage gap is the most "urgent priority" facing the ACA's continued success. She tapped affordability within the marketplace as the second big priority. Late last year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that across markets in 37 states, premiums for standard insurance plans went up an average 7.5 percent. For instance, in just one state — Minnesota — the state Department of Commerce reported that average increases in 2016 premium rates in the individual market ranged from 14 percent to 49 percent.

One way to avoid higher premiums is to choose a plan with higher out-of-pocket costs or deductibles, which can create a situation in which a person has insurance but cannot necessarily afford to see a doctor. Research has found that people with high-deductible plans are more likely to forgo needed care due to cost than those with lower-deductible plans. Another recent report, released from the Urban Institute in December 2015, found that even with financial assistance, 10 percent of 2016 individual marketplace enrollees with incomes below 200 percent of poverty will pay more than 18 percent of their incomes toward premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

"Even with subsidies, coverage isn't always affordable in terms of premiums and cost-sharing," Corlette told The Nation's Health. "If a plan has a high deductible, I can frankly understand why people would say there's no value there."

Some states, such as California, are using their authority to standardize prices, benefits and provider networks within their insurance marketplaces. In comparison, other states accept any insurer or plan into their marketplace as long as they meet federal ACA requirements. However, federal officials may soon be following California's lead.

In November 2015, CMS proposed a rule that would encourage insurers participating in Healthcare.gov to offer a set of standardized plans that fall within certain cost-sharing parameters. The proposed CMS rule also aims to strengthen standards regarding network adequacy, which refers to an insurance plan's ability to provide timely access to a sufficient number of in-network providers. For example, the rule proposes continuity of care protections for patients facing life-threatening illnesses and whose treating providers are dropped from their networks.

According to Corlette, there is a trend within the insurance marketplace toward narrower networks and closed or HMO-style networks. However, she emphasized that narrower networks are not necessarily bad — "I wouldn't equate narrow with lack of quality," she said. She noted that the ACA eliminated many of the ways insurers had used to control costs, such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Now, she said, network design is insurers' No. 1 cost-cutting tool — a shift that she said could be advantageous for consumer wallets as well.

"Network adequacy is like a Rorschach test — one person's adequate network is another person's inadequate network," Corlette said. "But the concern here is that without a standard, it could be a race to the bottom."

Claire McAndrew, MPH, private insurance program director at Families USA, also said that "we can't assume a narrow network is a bad network." However, McAndrew said stronger federal rules around costs and networks would protect consumers, make it easier to comparison shop in the marketplace, and "perhaps most importantly" tease out best practices in designing health insurance plans.

"People are starting to see the marketplace as part of the fabric of our health care system," she said. "Before, (access to insurance) was holding us back from really being able to address broader issues. But now, I think we'll see a greater focus on core issues of public health, a greater focus on health equity, a greater focus on quality and value. Now, we can really dissect what makes us healthy."

To read more on the ACA's recent successes, visit www.hhs.gov. For information on receiving health insurance via the federal marketplace, visit www.healthcare.gov.

Nations Health. 2016;46(3):1, 12 © 2016 American Public Health Association
 
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861503?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=127342PX

Posted in its entirety because the site is registration-only:



www.medscape.com

ACA Bringing Progress to Communities as Programs Mature: 12.7 Million Enroll

Kim Krisberg

Nations Health. 2016;46(3):1, 12
Introduction

In 2014, a resident and business owner in El Paso, Texas, met with a marketplace assistor to find affordable health insurance for his children and employees. He was not planning to buy coverage for himself as well, but with a little encouragement and help, he did.

Newly covered, he went for a checkup and his provider found colon cancer. Fortunately, with insurance in hand, he received timely treatment and a promising prognosis. The outcome is good news for the man and his family, but also for the many people he employs through his construction company. Mimi Garcia, MA, MPP, Texas state director for Enroll America, called this the "trickle-down effect" of the Affordable Care Act.

"And we have dozens more stories just like this," Garcia told The Nation's Health. "People who had never had health insurance before or had only been to the doctor when they were acutely ill, who get covered, go for a checkup and it turns out they have heart disease or breast cancer or are on the verge of developing diabetes…In a place like Texas, where so many people had been priced out of insurance coverage, (the ACA) is definitely a life-changer."

While Texas is still the nation's uninsured capital, the state has clocked significant progress since ACA implementation. According to the latest census data, the state's uninsured rate dropped from more than 22 percent in 2013 to about 19 percent in 2014, representing the largest gain in health coverage in Texas since 1999. And Texas is just one of the ACA's evolving success stories. Six years after President Barack Obama signed the ACA into law and three open enrollment periods later, health reform is bringing similar progress to communities across the country: Insurance enrollment numbers continue to climb upward, growth in health care spending has slowed and early research shows the ACA is tied to an increase in the uptake of preventive services.

According to February data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 12.7 million people purchased or were re-enrolled in an insurance plan during the 2015 open enrollment period, either through a state-based marketplace or the federally run marketplace at Healthcare.gov. Of the 9.6 million who purchased coverage through the federal marketplace, about 42 percent were new consumers. And while there was some concern that young, typically healthier populations would not enroll, 2.7 million people ages 18 to 34 signed up for coverage via the federal marketplace during the last enrollment period — an increase from the previous period. Another promising data point: In 2014, the nation's uninsurance rate among children dropped to a historic low of 6 percent.

"The ACA has clearly delivered in terms of coverage and access to coverage so far," said Patrick Willard, health action director at Families USA. "It's been great, especially in states that expanded Medicaid."
Challenges Ahead: Medicaid, Deductibles

Despite its successes, the ACA continues to face challenges, some political and some market-based. Arguably the biggest barrier to reaching the ACA's full coverage potential is opposition to Medicaid eligibility expansion. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of Medicaid expansion without jeopardizing their federal Medicaid funds. As of mid-January, 32 states and Washington, D.C., had expanded Medicaid, three states were considering expansion, and 16 states had not adopted expansion.

In his fiscal year 2017 federal budget proposal, Obama proposed full federal funding for the first three years of Medicaid expansion for states that expand in the future. Under current health reform law, federal funding covers 100 percent of expansion costs between 2014 and 2016 and at least 90 percent thereafter. If Obama's proposal becomes law, states that missed the 2016 cutoff would still receive three years of federal funds to cover the entire cost of expansion.

Willard said Medicaid expansion is critical to reaching much of the nation's remaining uninsured, noting that the current patchwork of Medicaid eligibility standards means a person's location determines their ability to afford insurance. The ACA was written with the assumption that all states would expand Medicaid eligibility up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line; however, the ability to opt out of expansion now means that about 3 million low-income adults fall into a coverage gap in which they do not qualify for Medicaid or for marketplace subsidies.

A February report from Families USA found that expansion states experienced an average 25 percent reduction in the rate of uninsured workers, versus a 13 percent drop in states without expansion. For example, in a state such as Texas, which has not expanded Medicaid, the difference of just $1 per hour in income can determine whether a person falls into the coverage gap or is eligible for insurance subsidies, said Garcia at Enroll America.

"We see this happening a lot and it just feels really unfair," she said. "Without expansion, we'll never be able to get the uninsured rate to the level we want — we'll always be operating with one hand behind our backs."

Sabrina Corlette, JD, project director and research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute, said the coverage gap is the most "urgent priority" facing the ACA's continued success. She tapped affordability within the marketplace as the second big priority. Late last year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that across markets in 37 states, premiums for standard insurance plans went up an average 7.5 percent. For instance, in just one state — Minnesota — the state Department of Commerce reported that average increases in 2016 premium rates in the individual market ranged from 14 percent to 49 percent.

One way to avoid higher premiums is to choose a plan with higher out-of-pocket costs or deductibles, which can create a situation in which a person has insurance but cannot necessarily afford to see a doctor. Research has found that people with high-deductible plans are more likely to forgo needed care due to cost than those with lower-deductible plans. Another recent report, released from the Urban Institute in December 2015, found that even with financial assistance, 10 percent of 2016 individual marketplace enrollees with incomes below 200 percent of poverty will pay more than 18 percent of their incomes toward premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

"Even with subsidies, coverage isn't always affordable in terms of premiums and cost-sharing," Corlette told The Nation's Health. "If a plan has a high deductible, I can frankly understand why people would say there's no value there."

Some states, such as California, are using their authority to standardize prices, benefits and provider networks within their insurance marketplaces. In comparison, other states accept any insurer or plan into their marketplace as long as they meet federal ACA requirements. However, federal officials may soon be following California's lead.

In November 2015, CMS proposed a rule that would encourage insurers participating in Healthcare.gov to offer a set of standardized plans that fall within certain cost-sharing parameters. The proposed CMS rule also aims to strengthen standards regarding network adequacy, which refers to an insurance plan's ability to provide timely access to a sufficient number of in-network providers. For example, the rule proposes continuity of care protections for patients facing life-threatening illnesses and whose treating providers are dropped from their networks.

According to Corlette, there is a trend within the insurance marketplace toward narrower networks and closed or HMO-style networks. However, she emphasized that narrower networks are not necessarily bad — "I wouldn't equate narrow with lack of quality," she said. She noted that the ACA eliminated many of the ways insurers had used to control costs, such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Now, she said, network design is insurers' No. 1 cost-cutting tool — a shift that she said could be advantageous for consumer wallets as well.

"Network adequacy is like a Rorschach test — one person's adequate network is another person's inadequate network," Corlette said. "But the concern here is that without a standard, it could be a race to the bottom."

Claire McAndrew, MPH, private insurance program director at Families USA, also said that "we can't assume a narrow network is a bad network." However, McAndrew said stronger federal rules around costs and networks would protect consumers, make it easier to comparison shop in the marketplace, and "perhaps most importantly" tease out best practices in designing health insurance plans.

"People are starting to see the marketplace as part of the fabric of our health care system," she said. "Before, (access to insurance) was holding us back from really being able to address broader issues. But now, I think we'll see a greater focus on core issues of public health, a greater focus on health equity, a greater focus on quality and value. Now, we can really dissect what makes us healthy."

To read more on the ACA's recent successes, visit www.hhs.gov. For information on receiving health insurance via the federal marketplace, visit www.healthcare.gov.

Nations Health. 2016;46(3):1, 12 © 2016 American Public Health Association

Dear Arianrhod
Why can't programs be offered and health care improvements invested in
without mandating citizens to buy insurance as the only choice?

Have you considered the proposal I offer:
To reform the prison budgets and REWARD
districts that reduce their crime rates by allowing
more of those tax dollars to go into building
schools including medical schools with clinics/hospitals.

That way, if people waste their own money they don't get health care covered.
If people SAVE their resources, it can go into covering and providing better
and better medical services and educational programs to sustain and expand.

Why can't that be done where the only mandates the govt
imposes are on people CONVICTED of crimes and/or who OWE MONEY.
Shouldn't the cost of crimes be charged back to the wrongdoers as a deterrence
AGAINST running up taxpayer expenses? Why punish people for working honest livings
while letting crooks live off taxpayers and not have them work to pay back debts they incurred.

Why not go for accountability? Reward taxpayers for investing
in solutions, and charge people who COST taxpayers money,
require such people to pay it back or else NOT incur such costs at all.

Wouldn't that work better instead of punishing
law-abiding taxpayers for "making more money"
and withholding their income through fines that penalize 'free choice"?
 
Dear Arianrhod
Why can't programs be offered and health care improvements invested in
without mandating citizens to buy insurance as the only choice?

Because members of Congress have been promising they'll take care of things for decades, while simultaneously accepting positions on insurance company boards of directors and meeting with insurance company lobbyists.
 
Dear Arianrhod
Why can't programs be offered and health care improvements invested in
without mandating citizens to buy insurance as the only choice?

Because members of Congress have been promising they'll take care of things for decades, while simultaneously accepting positions on insurance company boards of directors and meeting with insurance company lobbyists.
And because the Democrats and Republicans keep re-electing them.
 
Dear Arianrhod
Why can't programs be offered and health care improvements invested in
without mandating citizens to buy insurance as the only choice?

Because members of Congress have been promising they'll take care of things for decades, while simultaneously accepting positions on insurance company boards of directors and meeting with insurance company lobbyists.
And because the Democrats and Republicans keep re-electing them.

Yep. But in spite of your loathing of both parties, more Americans are able to see their doctors without amassing thousands of dollars in debt.

Sux for you, doesn't it?
 
Yep. But in spite of your loathing of both parties, more Americans are able to see their doctors without amassing thousands of dollars in debt.

Sux for you, doesn't it?

69d74526-818e-455c-b628-ad5ce7381bb2.jpg
 
Dear Arianrhod
Why can't programs be offered and health care improvements invested in
without mandating citizens to buy insurance as the only choice?

Because members of Congress have been promising they'll take care of things for decades, while simultaneously accepting positions on insurance company boards of directors and meeting with insurance company lobbyists.
And because the Democrats and Republicans keep re-electing them.

Yep. But in spite of your loathing of both parties, more Americans are able to see their doctors without amassing thousands of dollars in debt.

Sux for you, doesn't it?

Not really. Doesn't effect me much at all directly. But it eats away at the integrity of our nation, and that bothers me.
 
Dear Arianrhod
Why can't programs be offered and health care improvements invested in
without mandating citizens to buy insurance as the only choice?

Because members of Congress have been promising they'll take care of things for decades, while simultaneously accepting positions on insurance company boards of directors and meeting with insurance company lobbyists.
And because the Democrats and Republicans keep re-electing them.

Yep. But in spite of your loathing of both parties, more Americans are able to see their doctors without amassing thousands of dollars in debt.

Sux for you, doesn't it?

Dear Arianrhod
Depends which Americans you speak with.
I don't think it is fair to judge the validity of a bill based on which Americans were helped.
1. Since the bill affects ALL Americans and taxpayers
then ALL of us should have a say in how we pay for what services
2. Since the bill touches PRIVATE choices and beliefs
it is not fully constitutional unless we all consent to give up our authority to govt
this way, and we clearly do not

Arianrhod you are like saying
if banning abortion and fining people for not complying
helps save X million lives of babies each year,
then we should be happy to give up our free choice to govt.

Many people would argue that's NOT the least restrictive way
to end abortion, it can be done by FREE CHOICE without mandating penalties by law.

Same with health care.
Just because you feel it is a Shortcut to helping X amount
of the population by violating the rights of EVERY citizen
to free choice,
1. doesn't mean the law is valid by effectively helping some
because it doesn't serve all people and thus
isn't justified as the most compelling least restrictive way
it is still faith based and remains a choice
but you and the people pushing that don't recognize that belief or choice as being violated
2. doesn't make it lawful since it
violated the consent and free choice of individuals.

Arianrhod you make me think of the man who
held a gun to hospital staff in order to save his son's life.
It worked, but his act was still illegal.
It may have been expedient at the time, but it
was not the best way to achieve that goal.
Guess what, he still has to face charges
and serve time for the laws he broke.

So Arianrhod if you and Obama and the other people
pushing this "solution you think is more expedient" on
other people IN VIOLATION OF OUR EQUAL RIGHTS TO OTHER CHOICES
are WILLING to pay the restitution for violating our rights, I have no problem
if YOU take that financial responsibility and don't dump it on the people opposed.

The US military, if in carrying out war causes collateral damage to
innocent civilians, there is restitution they are supposed to pay out of the war budget.

So if you and the other people pushing this unconstitutional violation
on taxpayers are willing to pay the cost of the 24 billion dollar
shut down of govt over this contested bill,
SURE, you can have your way as long as you pay for ALL
the costs and consequences. But if you dump that on the
people who didn't agree to that contract, that isn't fair.

You are making us pay the cost of your experimental study
trying to prove it is the best way.

Pay for the cost of that yourself, and you have the right to
exercise your belief. but NOT at the cost of taxpayers
who didn't ask or agree to be your guinea pigs, much less pay for it.

Do you understand?
Why are you making other people pay to prove how the program works
after you have already imposed it on us against our will?
Where is the responsibility to pay for the costs of your beliefs
about health care half of America does not share?
 
The only Americans I've encountered who'd rather die than have affordable healthcare are Internet Anonyms. Make of that what you will. :dunno:
 
The only Americans I've encountered who'd rather die than have affordable healthcare are Internet Anonyms. Make of that what you will. :dunno:

You should get out more.

So I can meet stupid people? Why would I want to do that? :p

So you can expose yourself to ideas beyond the talking points. So you can gain a broader perspective and realize that not everyone sees things the way you do, and find out that that's okay.
 
Dear Markle that is Arianrhod post not mine
I think you cut the wrong quotes out.

[QUOTE="ARIANRHOD]

Yep. But in spite of your loathing of both parties, more Americans are able to see their doctors without amassing thousands of dollars in debt.

Sux for you, doesn't it?

69d74526-818e-455c-b628-ad5ce7381bb2.jpg
[/QUOTE]


I apologize for the error. I'm still learning this forum format and idiocracies.
 
The only Americans I've encountered who'd rather die than have affordable healthcare are Internet Anonyms. Make of that what you will. :dunno:

You should get out more.

So I can meet stupid people? Why would I want to do that? :p

So you can expose yourself to ideas beyond the talking points. So you can gain a broader perspective and realize that not everyone sees things the way you do, and find out that that's okay.

When the ideas are baseless and the people expressing them can't even bother explaining why they believe them, it's counterproductive.

The reality is that Congress still hasn't come up with an alternative to the PPACA.

The reality is in the first-person accounts such as the one in the OP.

You can cherish an idea that the Moon is made of gorgonzola, but you'll find precious little evidence to support your idea. Just repeating it doesn't make it so.
 

Forum List

Back
Top