Bob's on the radio (again!) in the morning (7:00 AM!!) to talk about today's court ruling outlawing "ObamaCrap." Click here and then hit the "listen live" button.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Breaking News: Judge Rules ObamaCare© Unconstitutional
The good news is that the US District Judge in Florida - you know, the 20+-state case judge? - has ruled the (Evil) Individual Mandate unconstitutional. Further, he found that it was such an integral part of "The Act" as to render the rest moot.
The bad news, if it can truly be deemed that, is that it is not dispositive; that is, the case will continue "upstream" to the Supreme Court, where it will join its sister cases before that august body.
As always, we'll keep you posted.
The bad news, if it can truly be deemed that, is that it is not dispositive; that is, the case will continue "upstream" to the Supreme Court, where it will join its sister cases before that august body.
As always, we'll keep you posted.
HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious in HD?
Maybe she just can't help herself; after all, when you're not the sharpest scalpel on the tray, you're not really expected to make a lot of sense. And, of course, Ms Shecantbeserious is rather dull, which may explain this little non-sequitor:
"[I]f I don’t have a 27-inch TV for the Super Bowl, I can’t demand on the day of the Super Bowl that somebody deliver that TV because I have a right to it. On the other hand, if I don’t have insurance, I come through the door of an emergency room and get treated and get cared for, and somebody else picks up the tab."
What Madame Secretary is referring to is EMTALA, a law that predates ObamaCare© by decades, and requires only immediate, critical care, not a long-term return to health. It should surprise no one, of course, that Kathy thinks that watching the Super Bowl is akin to saving someone's life; after all, these are the folks bringing us Death Panels.
Her point, so far as she actually has one, is that citizens should be forced to buy health insurance, whether they want to or not. It's not clear whether or not she also wants to make watching the Super Bowl mandatory; in such an event, perhaps the Death Panels don't look so bad after all.
It's almost amusing: having lost the "health insurance is the same as auto insurance" debate, the forces of ObamaCare© are reduced to "the Super Bowl is the same as health insurance." What's not funny, of course, is that these are the same folks granting waivers hither and yon, and who think that the public is stupid enough to buy their silly arguments.
Don't bet on it.
FACEPALM!
In the comments, Bob (correctly) points out that he'd made this call some ago. Timeless, and timely.
"[I]f I don’t have a 27-inch TV for the Super Bowl, I can’t demand on the day of the Super Bowl that somebody deliver that TV because I have a right to it. On the other hand, if I don’t have insurance, I come through the door of an emergency room and get treated and get cared for, and somebody else picks up the tab."
What Madame Secretary is referring to is EMTALA, a law that predates ObamaCare© by decades, and requires only immediate, critical care, not a long-term return to health. It should surprise no one, of course, that Kathy thinks that watching the Super Bowl is akin to saving someone's life; after all, these are the folks bringing us Death Panels.
Her point, so far as she actually has one, is that citizens should be forced to buy health insurance, whether they want to or not. It's not clear whether or not she also wants to make watching the Super Bowl mandatory; in such an event, perhaps the Death Panels don't look so bad after all.
It's almost amusing: having lost the "health insurance is the same as auto insurance" debate, the forces of ObamaCare© are reduced to "the Super Bowl is the same as health insurance." What's not funny, of course, is that these are the same folks granting waivers hither and yon, and who think that the public is stupid enough to buy their silly arguments.
Don't bet on it.
FACEPALM!
In the comments, Bob (correctly) points out that he'd made this call some ago. Timeless, and timely.
ObamaTolls©
PowerLine's John Hinderaker gets the WaiverMania impetus exactly right:
"[T]he vicious strategy at the heart of Obamacare [is to] pass terrible legislation, and then collect a toll by exempting your friends--those who pay you lots of money--from that legislation, while your enemies have to live with it."
In this case, the toll actually came before the legislation: look at how many of these waivers go to PresBo's union buddies, who so vociferously (and generou$ly) supported him and his policies. These organizations allegedly represent the interests of millions of workers, those for whom ObamaCare© was ostensibly designed to protect. One wonders how to reconcile these transparently contradictory goals.
I can, however, think of a term which describes it.
"[T]he vicious strategy at the heart of Obamacare [is to] pass terrible legislation, and then collect a toll by exempting your friends--those who pay you lots of money--from that legislation, while your enemies have to live with it."
In this case, the toll actually came before the legislation: look at how many of these waivers go to PresBo's union buddies, who so vociferously (and generou$ly) supported him and his policies. These organizations allegedly represent the interests of millions of workers, those for whom ObamaCare© was ostensibly designed to protect. One wonders how to reconcile these transparently contradictory goals.
I can, however, think of a term which describes it.
Guess what! We're THIS MANY Years Old!
Yes, six years (and 4,000+ posts) later, we're still going strong. Thanks to our readers for sticking by us, and a Special Thanks to my co-bloggers for their great insights.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Shecantbeserious Channels Barney Fife
When she's not granting ObamaWaivers© to PresBo's minions, HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious manages to help an escaped convict elude Federal Marshals:
"While one federal agency was doggedly hunting a fugitive drug smuggler who fled the country 31 years ago, others arranged for his return to South Florida and even loaned him money for housing when he landed here."
And who were these mysterious "others?" Well, none other than "the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services" under the (ahem) watchful eye of Ms Shecatbeserious.
And these are the folks slated to run our health care system?
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
"While one federal agency was doggedly hunting a fugitive drug smuggler who fled the country 31 years ago, others arranged for his return to South Florida and even loaned him money for housing when he landed here."
And who were these mysterious "others?" Well, none other than "the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services" under the (ahem) watchful eye of Ms Shecatbeserious.
And these are the folks slated to run our health care system?
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
Friday, January 28, 2011
Seeing through the MVNHS©
As we've long since noted, our country's cancer survival rates put those of our Cousins Across the Pond to shame. And it's episodes like this one which help explain why:
"At least one of four people whose cancer diagnosis was delayed at Londonderry's Altnagelvin Hospital has since died ... The delays happened after written assessments of 18,500 X-rays were not carried out."
Ooopsy.
Here's a poser:
"It is not yet clear whether the delay in diagnosis contributed to the death."
And yet:
"The huge backlog emerged last July when it came to light that important reports had not been completed by clinicians."
Move along, nothing to see here.
"At least one of four people whose cancer diagnosis was delayed at Londonderry's Altnagelvin Hospital has since died ... The delays happened after written assessments of 18,500 X-rays were not carried out."
Ooopsy.
Here's a poser:
"It is not yet clear whether the delay in diagnosis contributed to the death."
And yet:
"The huge backlog emerged last July when it came to light that important reports had not been completed by clinicians."
Move along, nothing to see here.
Ceridian's 2-cent Moment
As you may have read, cancer patient Ron Flanagan lost his insurance coverage because his premium payment was $.02 short.
Problem is, that's only part of the story, and as we've seen before, the press rarely looks beyond the popular narrative to see if, perhaps, there's more to the story.
And there is.
First, a quick primer on how COBRA works: when one leaves a COBRA-compliant employer (generally, any company with 20 or more full-time employees) one is entitled to stay on that employer's group plan for up to 18 months, as long as one pays the premium (plus a nominal handling charge) fully and on time. Since tracking this can be a time-consuming (and potentially legally treacherous) course, many employers out-source COBRA compliance to one of the many services which specialize in it. Ceridian is one such service. They are required to follow the law, which they (apparently) did.
I spoke briefly with a Ceridian spokescritter yesterday, who told me that once they were informed of the situation by both Mr Flanagan and the press, they persuaded the employer to reinstate coverage. Unfortunately, the rest of our conversation was off the record. I had hoped to confirm several other pieces of information, but Ceridian doesn't appear anxious to "set the record straight."
Which is a shame, really, because there's some obvious problems that should be addressed by pretty much all the parties involved. I'll start with Ceridian, which really should have more human-centric systems in place to alert them that a "de minimis" (that is "short") payment shouldn't automatically trigger a cancellation. Perhaps this was at the request of the employer (as seems probable), but in this age of automation it doesn't seem far-fetched that this could simply generate an electronic "red flag."
The problem then becomes "what's a de minimis" payment: 2 cents? 2 dollars? 20 dollars? 200 dollars? When you start making exceptions, you open yourself up to a lot of litigation.
Next, let's turn our attention to the Flanagan's. One can certainly sympathize with their plight, and it's easy to make a simple mistake on a check. But they were notified of the shortage and apparently did nothing to confirm that their coverage was still intact until they got to the doctor's office. If someone's suffering a life-threatening illness, doesn't it make sense to make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed? From the accounts that I've read, it appears that Ceridian attempted more than once to alert them to the potential loss of coverage.
It's still not clear to me how this all played out "behind the scenes." For example, was this a self-funded plan, and is that perhaps relevant? Was it fully insured, and thus the cancellation generated by the carrier? Certainly, Ceridian had no reason to arbitrarily cancel the policy: for one thing, they weren't paying any claims; for another, it cost them whatever fees they were being paid on Mr Flanagan's behalf.
Should Ceridian have been more pro-active before issuing the cancellation? Perhaps, but COBRA law and regulations are murky at best, and it's often prudent to simply follow the letter of the law. That's not to excuse anyone, but to acknowledge reality.
Problem is, that's only part of the story, and as we've seen before, the press rarely looks beyond the popular narrative to see if, perhaps, there's more to the story.
And there is.
First, a quick primer on how COBRA works: when one leaves a COBRA-compliant employer (generally, any company with 20 or more full-time employees) one is entitled to stay on that employer's group plan for up to 18 months, as long as one pays the premium (plus a nominal handling charge) fully and on time. Since tracking this can be a time-consuming (and potentially legally treacherous) course, many employers out-source COBRA compliance to one of the many services which specialize in it. Ceridian is one such service. They are required to follow the law, which they (apparently) did.
I spoke briefly with a Ceridian spokescritter yesterday, who told me that once they were informed of the situation by both Mr Flanagan and the press, they persuaded the employer to reinstate coverage. Unfortunately, the rest of our conversation was off the record. I had hoped to confirm several other pieces of information, but Ceridian doesn't appear anxious to "set the record straight."
Which is a shame, really, because there's some obvious problems that should be addressed by pretty much all the parties involved. I'll start with Ceridian, which really should have more human-centric systems in place to alert them that a "de minimis" (that is "short") payment shouldn't automatically trigger a cancellation. Perhaps this was at the request of the employer (as seems probable), but in this age of automation it doesn't seem far-fetched that this could simply generate an electronic "red flag."
The problem then becomes "what's a de minimis" payment: 2 cents? 2 dollars? 20 dollars? 200 dollars? When you start making exceptions, you open yourself up to a lot of litigation.
Next, let's turn our attention to the Flanagan's. One can certainly sympathize with their plight, and it's easy to make a simple mistake on a check. But they were notified of the shortage and apparently did nothing to confirm that their coverage was still intact until they got to the doctor's office. If someone's suffering a life-threatening illness, doesn't it make sense to make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed? From the accounts that I've read, it appears that Ceridian attempted more than once to alert them to the potential loss of coverage.
It's still not clear to me how this all played out "behind the scenes." For example, was this a self-funded plan, and is that perhaps relevant? Was it fully insured, and thus the cancellation generated by the carrier? Certainly, Ceridian had no reason to arbitrarily cancel the policy: for one thing, they weren't paying any claims; for another, it cost them whatever fees they were being paid on Mr Flanagan's behalf.
Should Ceridian have been more pro-active before issuing the cancellation? Perhaps, but COBRA law and regulations are murky at best, and it's often prudent to simply follow the letter of the law. That's not to excuse anyone, but to acknowledge reality.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Email on Email: Retirees and HSAs
About three years ago, we answered a reader's email about HSA's and retiree medical coverage. Recently, we received a follow-up email from another reader:
"Hello,
I just read your ... entry on HSA's and those eligible for Medicare. We have a related question: If the employee is 63 and has an HDHP with an HSA, and his wife is 65 and has Medicare Parts A and B, can she still be on his HDHP? Can he make the family contribution amount into the HSA, ie $6150 plus his catch up contribution since he is the employee and is not on Medicare and he is the eligible employee and she is the dependent?
Or, is she just not able to participate in the HSA so therefore he can only make a single HSA contribution of $3050 plus his catchup contribution?
Thank you,
[Loyal Reader]"
We're always happy to answer our readers' questions, and sometimes (such as in this case) share them as a post (maintaining anonymity, of course). It seems to me that, as the Boomers come of age, a lot of folks will be asking these questions. So, I turned to our own on-call FlexBenefits guru, Alissa Culp of FlexBank. Alissa's graciously answered our questions (which I've already forwarded to our correspondent):
Q: If the employee is 63 and has a HDHP with a HSA, and his wife is 65 and has Medicare Part A and Part B, can she still be on his HDHP?
A: Yes.
Q: Can he make the family contribution amount ... ie $6150 + his catch up contribution?
A: He can make the family contribution only if he has family coverage.
Q: Is she just not able to participate in the HSA ... he can only make a single HSA contribution of $3050 plus his catchup contribution?
A: His maximum contribution into his HSA depends on his coverage type. If he has family coverage, he can contribute the family maximum. If he has single coverage, he can contribute up to the single maximum.
Alissa also sent along a helpful guide that expands on some of this information; drop us a line if you’d like a copy.
Thanks, Alissa and [Loyal Reader]!
"Hello,
I just read your ... entry on HSA's and those eligible for Medicare. We have a related question: If the employee is 63 and has an HDHP with an HSA, and his wife is 65 and has Medicare Parts A and B, can she still be on his HDHP? Can he make the family contribution amount into the HSA, ie $6150 plus his catch up contribution since he is the employee and is not on Medicare and he is the eligible employee and she is the dependent?
Or, is she just not able to participate in the HSA so therefore he can only make a single HSA contribution of $3050 plus his catchup contribution?
Thank you,
[Loyal Reader]"
We're always happy to answer our readers' questions, and sometimes (such as in this case) share them as a post (maintaining anonymity, of course). It seems to me that, as the Boomers come of age, a lot of folks will be asking these questions. So, I turned to our own on-call FlexBenefits guru, Alissa Culp of FlexBank. Alissa's graciously answered our questions (which I've already forwarded to our correspondent):
Q: If the employee is 63 and has a HDHP with a HSA, and his wife is 65 and has Medicare Part A and Part B, can she still be on his HDHP?
A: Yes.
Q: Can he make the family contribution amount ... ie $6150 + his catch up contribution?
A: He can make the family contribution only if he has family coverage.
Q: Is she just not able to participate in the HSA ... he can only make a single HSA contribution of $3050 plus his catchup contribution?
A: His maximum contribution into his HSA depends on his coverage type. If he has family coverage, he can contribute the family maximum. If he has single coverage, he can contribute up to the single maximum.
Alissa also sent along a helpful guide that expands on some of this information; drop us a line if you’d like a copy.
Thanks, Alissa and [Loyal Reader]!
WaiverMania: Catch the Waive! [UPDATED & BUMPED]
By our most recent count, 222 plans had been granted waivers from all or part of ObamaCare©.
You just knew there'd be more, but who could have known just how many?
IB readers had a clue.
And they were right:
"President Obama’s health department made public new waivers for more than more than 500 groups."
Although I was told that there'd be no math, that figure is more than double the previous total. At this rate, we may not have to even worry about ObamaCare© at all: pretty soon, everyone will be waived.
We wish.
The current tally, by the way, stands at over 2 million participants whose plans are not subject to the draconian mandates set forth in the plan we had to "pass to see what's in it."
Never let it be said, though, that HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has no sense of humor:
"HHS said Wednesday night that it wants to make the waiver process transparent."
Oh, it's transparent, Kathy: we can see right through you.
UPDATE: Well, well, well. Apparently, those Republican party-poopers in Congress aren't catching The Waive:
"The Obama administration’s waivers ... are a “perfect example of special interests” having influence in the administration and will be looked into by Congress"
Sen Charles Grassley of Iowa is calling the Obamastration on its early promise to eschew "special interests," citing the fact that so many of those granted waivers seem to be unions and their ilk. Although the investigations will take place in the House, the Senator has pledged to aid them in their quest to shed some light on the process.
Things could get interesting...
You just knew there'd be more, but who could have known just how many?
IB readers had a clue.
And they were right:
"President Obama’s health department made public new waivers for more than more than 500 groups."
Although I was told that there'd be no math, that figure is more than double the previous total. At this rate, we may not have to even worry about ObamaCare© at all: pretty soon, everyone will be waived.
We wish.
The current tally, by the way, stands at over 2 million participants whose plans are not subject to the draconian mandates set forth in the plan we had to "pass to see what's in it."
Never let it be said, though, that HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has no sense of humor:
"HHS said Wednesday night that it wants to make the waiver process transparent."
Oh, it's transparent, Kathy: we can see right through you.
UPDATE: Well, well, well. Apparently, those Republican party-poopers in Congress aren't catching The Waive:
"The Obama administration’s waivers ... are a “perfect example of special interests” having influence in the administration and will be looked into by Congress"
Sen Charles Grassley of Iowa is calling the Obamastration on its early promise to eschew "special interests," citing the fact that so many of those granted waivers seem to be unions and their ilk. Although the investigations will take place in the House, the Senator has pledged to aid them in their quest to shed some light on the process.
Things could get interesting...
Sure beats the lizard!
Now this is a great car insurance commercial:
[Major Hat Tip to Russell at Chatswood Moneyblog for the vid]
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
This Just In: ObamaLied©
Not to put too fine a point on it, of course, but here's what the (ostensibly) non-partisan Medicare Actuary just officially announced:
"[ObamaCare©] probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it."
In other related news, the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow, and next month is expected to be February.
That is all.
"[ObamaCare©] probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it."
In other related news, the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow, and next month is expected to be February.
That is all.
Cavalcade of Risk #123 now online
Notwithstanding blog presents this week's roundup of risk-related goodness. Take a chance and stop on by!
And please note: If your post is included, you are expected to link back.
And please note: If your post is included, you are expected to link back.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Another One Bites the Dust
Remember that ObamaPromise© that "if you like your health insurance, you can keep your insurance?" And remember when (just 3 short months ago) The Principal and UHC put the lie to that vow? Well, it just got kicked again:
"Today, Guardian announced plans to withdraw our medical insurance product line from all states, pending regulatory approval. This means we will no longer quote any new medical insurance business and we will work to wind down our existing medical business over the next two years."
[ed: That's from an email we just received; so far, this hasn't shown up at the company website]
Around these parts, Guardian wasn't exactly a major player in the medical insurance arena, so the impact is likely to be fairly small. Still, it's one more notch in ObamaCare©'s belt.
To paraphrase Bob, "Poppa Washington: less choice, fewer carriers."
UPDATE: No sooner did I hit the "go" button on this post than another email arrived, this one from UHC:
"UnitedHealthcare Employer & Individual has entered into an agreement to renew medical insurance coverage for The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America's medical plan customers."
Does anyone else see a pattern emerging here? Is anyone else just a wee bit concerned about it?
"Today, Guardian announced plans to withdraw our medical insurance product line from all states, pending regulatory approval. This means we will no longer quote any new medical insurance business and we will work to wind down our existing medical business over the next two years."
[ed: That's from an email we just received; so far, this hasn't shown up at the company website]
Around these parts, Guardian wasn't exactly a major player in the medical insurance arena, so the impact is likely to be fairly small. Still, it's one more notch in ObamaCare©'s belt.
To paraphrase Bob, "Poppa Washington: less choice, fewer carriers."
UPDATE: No sooner did I hit the "go" button on this post than another email arrived, this one from UHC:
"UnitedHealthcare Employer & Individual has entered into an agreement to renew medical insurance coverage for The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America's medical plan customers."
Does anyone else see a pattern emerging here? Is anyone else just a wee bit concerned about it?
1 + 1 = 0
As we've long since noted, one of the (unintended?) effects of ObamaCare© is a shortage of physicians. As we reported last month, "40% of doctors said they would "retire, seek a nonclinical job in health care, or seek a job or business unrelated to health care." Dr Bradley Wertheim, looking at the facts through a slightly different lens, finds that new physician training standards will exacerbate the problem:
"[S]taffing requirements further underpin the argument for 30-hour shifts and 80-hour workweeks. The problem is simple: We have too many patients and too few doctors."
In a related development, FoIB Holly R tipped us to news on the doctor-owned hospital front. Previously, we reported that the "health care overhaul law closes the door on future physician-owned hospitals;" Holly's link expands on that point:
"The construction of physician-owned hospitals, which has been halted or jeopardized due to Section 6001 of healthcare reform, could have provided $200 million in tax revenue and 30,000 jobs to local communities ..."
The point is that it's not just the doc's who are affected by this, but the architects, contractors, carpenters, plumbers ... well, you get the picture. It's a very expensive ripple effect. And it affects us health care consumers, as well: fewer hospitals means less competition, and thus higher prices. And, of course, higher health care costs means higher health insurance costs.
And it's not just those direct costs that matter. According to the Physician Hospitals of America, "physician owned hospitals pour millions into local businesses, collectively spending $4.2 billion per year, or $15 million for every community that has" one. That's a lot of economic impact, now frittered away.
"[S]taffing requirements further underpin the argument for 30-hour shifts and 80-hour workweeks. The problem is simple: We have too many patients and too few doctors."
In a related development, FoIB Holly R tipped us to news on the doctor-owned hospital front. Previously, we reported that the "health care overhaul law closes the door on future physician-owned hospitals;" Holly's link expands on that point:
"The construction of physician-owned hospitals, which has been halted or jeopardized due to Section 6001 of healthcare reform, could have provided $200 million in tax revenue and 30,000 jobs to local communities ..."
The point is that it's not just the doc's who are affected by this, but the architects, contractors, carpenters, plumbers ... well, you get the picture. It's a very expensive ripple effect. And it affects us health care consumers, as well: fewer hospitals means less competition, and thus higher prices. And, of course, higher health care costs means higher health insurance costs.
And it's not just those direct costs that matter. According to the Physician Hospitals of America, "physician owned hospitals pour millions into local businesses, collectively spending $4.2 billion per year, or $15 million for every community that has" one. That's a lot of economic impact, now frittered away.
Oprah, Tom and Tiger vs MLR
What do a talk show host, a movie star and a golf legend have to do with Medical Loss Ratios (MLR)? This clever video has the down low:
My only real quibble with the vid is that it continues the conflation of health care with health insurance. For a more detailed explication of MLR, be sure to check out Mike and Bob's take on the subject.
[Video Hat Tip: Avik Roy]
My only real quibble with the vid is that it continues the conflation of health care with health insurance. For a more detailed explication of MLR, be sure to check out Mike and Bob's take on the subject.
[Video Hat Tip: Avik Roy]
Monday, January 24, 2011
Stupid Carrier Tricks: Empty Threats Edition
Got this in email from United HealthsCare:
"All Savers will require notification from all groups at renewal, regardless of whether or not a plan change is being made."
AllSavers is UHC's latest rendition of group coverage. At renewal time, groups have several options: stay with the current (or similar) plan, change benefits, and/or shop around. Typically, a group has to respond only if it's going to make changes; absent an affirmative response to the contrary, the carrier will assume that the group wants to "let it ride."
Here, UHC is "requiring" that the group respond, regardless. To which I replied: "Or else what?"
No response is needed, of course, since they can huff and puff all they want, but they can't refuse to renew a group because said group didn't send them a form.
The good news is that this came via email, so all that was wasted were some relatively inexpensive pixels (and my time).
"All Savers will require notification from all groups at renewal, regardless of whether or not a plan change is being made."
AllSavers is UHC's latest rendition of group coverage. At renewal time, groups have several options: stay with the current (or similar) plan, change benefits, and/or shop around. Typically, a group has to respond only if it's going to make changes; absent an affirmative response to the contrary, the carrier will assume that the group wants to "let it ride."
Here, UHC is "requiring" that the group respond, regardless. To which I replied: "Or else what?"
No response is needed, of course, since they can huff and puff all they want, but they can't refuse to renew a group because said group didn't send them a form.
The good news is that this came via email, so all that was wasted were some relatively inexpensive pixels (and my time).
Wherefore art thou, Gramps?
Another ObamaPromise© under the bus:
"After health care reform was enacted on March 23, 2010, we chose to grandfather most of the medical plans in our portfolio ... Since that time, we have seen muted market interest in retaining grandfathered status."
This is from Anthem, but I suspect that other carriers share this experience. It's simple, really: all 'grandfathering" does is tie a group's hands: it can't make substantive changes to bring down rates at renewal, and it adds a whole host of complications to the renewal process itself. And, as we've mentioned, the whole phenomenon will go away in a few short cycles since groups must make changes to rein in costs, thereby "un-grandfathering" their plans.
As a result, Anthem isn't even going to go through the motions any longer. Beginning with April renewals:
"We will release all renewals as nongrandfathered plans."
Sure, they'll still offer groups the option of remaining grandfathered (as opposed to the current "default" position), but that's going to be a bit more complicated going forward, since the carrier, the agent and the group will have to determine whether any changes have already been made that would obviate grandfathered status. In fact, there's a rather extensive "laundry list" of issues that must be addressed in that process.
It's just one more (egregious) example of how ObamaCare© does not, in fact, have anything to do with managing the cost of health insurance, let alone health care.
"After health care reform was enacted on March 23, 2010, we chose to grandfather most of the medical plans in our portfolio ... Since that time, we have seen muted market interest in retaining grandfathered status."
This is from Anthem, but I suspect that other carriers share this experience. It's simple, really: all 'grandfathering" does is tie a group's hands: it can't make substantive changes to bring down rates at renewal, and it adds a whole host of complications to the renewal process itself. And, as we've mentioned, the whole phenomenon will go away in a few short cycles since groups must make changes to rein in costs, thereby "un-grandfathering" their plans.
As a result, Anthem isn't even going to go through the motions any longer. Beginning with April renewals:
"We will release all renewals as nongrandfathered plans."
Sure, they'll still offer groups the option of remaining grandfathered (as opposed to the current "default" position), but that's going to be a bit more complicated going forward, since the carrier, the agent and the group will have to determine whether any changes have already been made that would obviate grandfathered status. In fact, there's a rather extensive "laundry list" of issues that must be addressed in that process.
It's just one more (egregious) example of how ObamaCare© does not, in fact, have anything to do with managing the cost of health insurance, let alone health care.
Benefits Package #4 is up!
Jennifer Benz takes the baton from us, and presents a great roundup of benefits-related posts. Do stop by.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Windmill Tilting?
As tempting as this idea may be on paper, one wonders whether it's the least bit legit:
"Idaho's Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama's signature bill null and void.
Lawmakers in six other states -- Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming -- are also mulling "nullification" bills"
The basic premise of "nullification" is that the states themselves empower the Fed's, and that this power can be "switched off" if the latter oversteps its bounds. Even if one accepts this notion (and it's sorely tempting when it comes to ObamaCare©), it's important to recall that the Supremes swatted it down back in the 50's. That was then, of course, and this is now, but it's hard to imagine that the Supremes would renege on their own precedent.
Meantime, FoIB Holly R informs us that my own Buckeye State has also joined the lawsuit against ObamaCare©:
"Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming will join the coalition of states that have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Florida."
The plot thickens.
"Idaho's Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama's signature bill null and void.
Lawmakers in six other states -- Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming -- are also mulling "nullification" bills"
The basic premise of "nullification" is that the states themselves empower the Fed's, and that this power can be "switched off" if the latter oversteps its bounds. Even if one accepts this notion (and it's sorely tempting when it comes to ObamaCare©), it's important to recall that the Supremes swatted it down back in the 50's. That was then, of course, and this is now, but it's hard to imagine that the Supremes would renege on their own precedent.
Meantime, FoIB Holly R informs us that my own Buckeye State has also joined the lawsuit against ObamaCare©:
"Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming will join the coalition of states that have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Florida."
The plot thickens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
