With Federal Support, States Hold Steady in Medicaid and CHIP Coverage Policies for Low-Income Children and Families Despite Recession

/PRNewswire/ -- Despite tight budgets, nearly all states maintained or made targeted expansions or improvements in their Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) eligibility and enrollment rules in 2010, preserving the programs' ability to provide coverage to millions of low-income Americans who otherwise lack affordable options, according to a new survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation's Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (KCMU).

The 10th annual KCMU 50-state survey of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility rules, enrollment and renewal procedures and cost sharing practices, this year conducted with the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, found that coverage policies held steady or in some cases expanded, particularly for low-income children. However, eligibility for their parents and other low-income adults continued to lag behind. The stability of such programs during a recession that has produced sharp increases in unemployment and declines in state tax revenues arises in large part from the temporary federal fiscal relief for Medicaid provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

That enhanced federal assistance, which will end in July, was tied to requirements for states to maintain Medicaid coverage policies. To help provide a base for the future Medicaid expansion, the health reform law also requires states to maintain public coverage for adults until broader health reform goes into effect in 2014 and until 2019 for children. However, in the coming year states continue to face significant budget pressures as demand for the programs remains high and state revenues continue to be depressed amidst the slow economic recovery.

"Millions of American families have turned to Medicaid and CHIP as incomes have declined after losing jobs and the health insurance that often goes with them," said Diane Rowland, Executive Vice President of the Foundation and Executive Director of the KCMU. "Keeping these programs stable and strong has helped protect children and avoid an even larger increase in the nation's 50 million uninsured, and will be key to ensuring the success of health reform implementation over the next few years."

Coverage Policies Held Steady or Expanded in 2010, Especially For Children

The survey found that 49 states, including D.C., held steady or made targeted improvements in their Medicaid and CHIP eligibility rules and enrollment procedures. A total of 13 states expanded eligibility, largely for children, and 14 states made improvements in enrollment and renewal procedures to reduce burdens on families and streamline administrative processes.

Without the enhanced federal funding and maintenance-of-effort requirements in the ARRA and health reform laws, it is likely that more states would have made cutbacks in coverage to cope with budget pressures. Two states -- Arizona and New Jersey -- did make reductions that were not subject to the requirements in the laws.

Coverage for Low-Income Adults Continues to Lag Behind

The survey finds that as of January 1, 2011, 25 states, including D.C., cover children in families with incomes at least up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($45,775 for a family of three in 2010), continuing a decade of progress in covering children. However, coverage for their parents lags behind. The median Medicaid eligibility threshold for parents nationally remains at 64 percent of the federal poverty level, and 16 states limit eligibility for parents to those in families that earn below 50 percent of the federal poverty level ($9,155 for a family of three in 2010).

Until health reform passed, states could not cover adults without dependent children in Medicaid programs without a waiver. The new law ends the historic exclusion of these adults through a Medicaid eligibility expansion to a national floor of 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($24,352 for a family of three and $14,404 for an individual in 2010). Although the law won't take full effect until 2014, last year Connecticut and D.C. took advantage of the new option to begin covering these adults by moving into Medicaid low-income adults whom they had previously covered only with state and local dollars. Also, California received approval for a waiver to continue and expand county initiatives that cover low-income adults. A few other states, including Minnesota, also have pending plans to take advantage of the new option to provide Medicaid coverage to adults. Even with these efforts, as of January 1, only seven states (Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, New York and Vermont) provided Medicaid or Medicaid-equivalent benefits to adults without dependent children.

In the absence of further expansions over the next couple of years, most uninsured, low-income adults will remain unable to qualify for Medicaid until health reform goes into effect in 2014.

States are Incorporating Technology into Their Programs, but Have More Work Ahead

The survey finds that states continue to adopt technology to modernize their programs. Many of these improvements have helped to reduce barriers to enrollment and renewal for families, while also streamlining administrative processes and achieving administrative efficiencies. For example, about half of the states (29) took advantage of a new option to rely on an electronic data match with the Social Security Administration to more efficiently and accurately verify citizenship status of applicants for Medicaid and CHIP. The survey also found states making progress in using electronic data matches to verify other aspects of eligibility.

Yet states still have a significant amount of work to do, the survey finds. The new health reform law calls upon states to implement an integrated, web-based, technology-driven enrollment process for Medicaid, CHIP, and coverage in the new health insurance Exchanges. While all states make their Medicaid application available online, only slightly more than half (29) allow for the application to be electronically submitted with an electronic signature and most of these still require families to submit paper documentation via mail or fax. In light of a rule proposed by the Administration at the end of 2010 to provide states with a 90% federal matching rate to prepare their Medicaid eligibility systems for health reform, new grant funding, and the likelihood of additional guidance and funding opportunities in the months ahead, more activity in this area is expected in the coming year.

Today's report, Holding Steady, Looking Ahead: Annual Findings of a 50-State Survey of Eligibility Rules, Enrollment and Renewal Procedures, and Cost-Sharing Practices in Medicaid and CHIP, 2010-2011, and related materials from today's public briefing on the survey findings, are available online at: http://www.kff.org/medicaid/Medicaid-CHIP-Coverage-Recession-Health-Reform.cfm. In addition, an archived webcast of a public briefing will be available on the website after 4 p.m. ET today.

The Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit private operating foundation, based in Menlo Park, California, dedicated to producing and communicating the best possible information and analysis on health issues.

The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured provides information and analysis on health care coverage and access for the low-income population, with a special focus on Medicaid's role and coverage of the uninsured. Begun in 1991 and based in the Kaiser Family Foundation's Washington, D.C. office, the Commission is the largest operating program of the Foundation. The Commission's work is conducted by Foundation staff under the guidance of a bipartisan group of national leaders and experts in health care and public policy.

-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP

New Affordable Care Act rules shed light on high health insurance rate hikes

New proposed Affordable Care Act regulations announced today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will bring new transparency and scrutiny to proposed health insurance rate increases. These proposed rules allow HHS to work with states to require insurers to publicly disclose and justify unreasonable rate increases.

“Year after year, insurance company profits soar, while Americans pay more for less health care coverage,” said Secretary Sebelius. “The Affordable Care Act is bringing unprecedented transparency and oversight to insurance premiums to help reign in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families.”

Health insurance premiums have risen rapidly over the past decade, straining pocketbooks for American families and businesses. Since 1999, average premiums for family coverage have risen 131 percent.

The Affordable Care Act has already begun to help states strengthen or create rate review processes. On August 16, HHS awarded $46 million to 45 states and the District of Columbia to help them improve their oversight of proposed health insurance rate increases. This is part of $250 million that the health reform law makes available to states to take action against insurers seeking unreasonable rate hikes.

Today’s proposed regulations will build on these efforts by requiring insurers in all states to publicly justify any unreasonable rate increases beginning in 2011. In 2011, proposed rate increases of 10 percent or higher will be publicly disclosed and thoroughly reviewed to determine if the rate increase is unreasonable. After 2011, state-specific thresholds would be set using data and trends that better reflect cost trends particular to each state. Insurance company’s justifications for unreasonable increases will be posted on HealthCare.gov and the insurance plan’s website.

“The proposed rate review policy will empower consumers, promote competition, encourage insurers to do more to control health care costs and discourage insurers from charging premiums which are unjustified,” said Jay Angoff, director of HHS’ Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

Under the proposed regulation, states with effective rate review systems would conduct the reviews. If a state lacks the resources or authority to do thorough actuarial reviews, HHS would conduct them. Meanwhile, HHS will continue to make resources available to states to strengthen their rate review processes.

In 2014, the Affordable Care Act empowers states to exclude health plans that show a pattern of excessive or unjustified premium increases from the new health insurance exchanges.

-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP

Consumer Advocates Ask for White House/HHS Probe of Health Insurers' Reduced Medical Care Spending, Even As Premiums Spike

/PRNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog and the Center for Media and Democracy today asked the Obama administration to investigate how the major for-profit health insurance companies are reducing their proportion of spending on health care in advance of health reform, even as premiums spike upward. In a letter to Health and Human Services chief Kathleen Sebelius, the groups compared insurers' actions to those of credit card companies, which spiked annual interest rates last year in advance of new federal regulations that would curb corporate abuses.

"Insurance companies appear to be making sure that when new federal rules for spending on health care kick in next year, they can keep their administrative bloat and profits intact," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog.

The groups noted in the letter that insurance companies are lobbying intensely to distort new rules meant to require increased medical spending -- 80% of premium dollars for individual and small group policies and 85% for large group policies. The insurers seek to redefine billions of dollars in overhead and administration expenses as health care. By cutting their medical ratio now, they can make room for the redefined overhead expenses next year and meet but not exceed the 80% to 85% minimums.

Co-signer Wendell Potter of the Center for Media and Democracy said that red flags went up when Cigna, the last major insurer to report 2nd quarter results, showed a startling 6.4% drop in its medical spending ratio (also called medical loss ratio, or MLR) to 78.8%, a cut that appears unprecedented for a large insurer.

Read the full letter at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/sebeliusletterCWDCMD081110.pdf

The letter said:

"We write jointly as advocates for consumer rights and transparency to urge you to examine health insurers' reports of reductions in their proportion of medical spending in recent quarters, even as premiums have risen substantially in advance of the new health reform law. The major insurance companies' behavior looks suspiciously like that of credit card companies, which spiked annual interest rates in advance of consumer protection laws intended to restrict the conditions under which rates could go up.

"Like the credit card companies, health insurers assume that they can get away with what amounts to bilking their customers now to set up higher profits in the future. The health insurers appear to be cutting the proportion of premium dollars spent on medical care, in the case of CIGNA by likely record proportions, in advance of regulations intended to make them spend a higher proportion on care, and less on administrative bloat.

"Unlike with credit card companies, you have the power to curb their gaming of the system. The regulations that you put in place to enforce the new health law requirement that they spend 80% to 85% of customers' premium on health care will decide whether the companies cater to Wall Street or to their patients.

"The outcome of the regulations that are now being written will depend on your resistance to a massive lobbying effort by the insurance industry.

"As you know, insurers already expect that changes in the [medical loss ratio] calculation specified in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will allow more insurer activities to be defined as 'health quality improvements' and counted as health care. At least some and possibly all of their state and federal taxes will also be deducted from premium revenue. The combined effect, depending on vagueness or laxness in final regulations, could amount to a 5% or larger insurer 'bonus' in calculating the MLR.

"See Consumer Watchdog comment on tax deduction regulation at http://www.naic.org/committees_lhatf_ahwg.htm

"The result of this bonus is that it pays for an insurer to suppress MLR as much as possible now, to keep future MLR at -- but not above -- 80% for individual and small business policies, and 85% for large groups. It is not possible for the public to accurately determine how the company's drastic reduction in MLR -- which increases its value to Wall Street--was accomplished.

"The Center for Media and Democracy and Consumer Watchdog ask that HHS demand much more detail about the nature of the MLR reductions from CIGNA and lesser reductions by other insurers, and make the results public. The examination should seek to determine if financial coercion of employers and individuals (through unaffordable and unjustifiable spikes in the rates of less profitable plans, or the targeted closure of some plans) was part of any shift to higher-deductible and lower benefit plans.

"HHS should also seek to tighten new definitions of what can be included in the medical loss ratio. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which is finalizing proposed regulations to decide how medical loss ratios are defined, is being lobbied by insurers and their lawyers with an intensity that makes the lobbying of Congress pale by comparison. As the proposed regulations are being finalized, they risk being further weakened. It will be up to HHS to right the balance.

"Presumably the MLR reductions at CIGNA and other companies involved what insurers call 'aggressive medical management' to reduce the amount of care provided enrollees. However, it likely also involved the movement of more enrollees into plans that require greater cost sharing and provide less care, through marketing or price coercion."

Insurers and their lobbyists count on the technical detail of financial reports and regulatory actions to mask their intent, said Consumer Watchdog and the Center for Media and Democracy.

Consumers don't notice until their premiums shoot through the roof and their health benefit are reduced. Regulators must resist corporate lobbies and act to protect ordinary citizens, the groups said.

Consumer Watchdog and the Center for Media and Democracy are nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer advocates. For more information, see www.consumerwatchdog.org and www.prwatch.org

-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter:  @GAFrontPage