Refinement of the Affordable Care Act.

Regardless of what legislation the federal government adopts to address health insurance coverage for nonelderly Americans, private insurance will likely play a major role. This article begins by listing some of the major reasons critics dislike the Affordable Care Act (ACA), then discusses the validity of these concerns from an economics perspective. Criticisms of the ACA include the increased role of government in health care, the ACA's implicit income redistribution, and concern about high and rising insurance premiums. Suggestions for refining the ACA and its market-based insurance system are then offered, with the goals of lowering insurance premiums, improving coverage rates, and/or addressing the concerns of ACA critics. Americans favor the increase in insurance coverage that has occurred under the ACA. In order to sustain this level of coverage, steps to lower Marketplace premiums through a variety of strategies affecting potential enrollees, insurers, and healthcare providers are offered.

What Is Federalism in Healthcare For?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) offers a window into modern American federalism--and modern American nationalism--in action. The ACA's federalism is defined not by separation between state and federal, but rather by a national structure that invites state-led implementation. As it turns out, that structure was only a starting point for a remarkably dynamic and adaptive implementation process that has generated new state-federal arrangements. States move back and forth between different structural models vis-a-vis the federal government; internal state politics produce different state choices; states copy, compete, and cooperate with each other; and negotiation with federal counterparts is a near constant. These characteristics have endured through the change in presidential administration. This Article presents the results of a study that tracked the details of the ACA's federalism-related implementation from 2012 to 2017. Among the questions that motivated the project: Does the ACA actually effectuate "federalism," and what are federalism's key attributes when entwined with national statutory implementation? A federal law on the scale of the ACA presented a rare opportunity to investigate implementation from a statute's very beginning and to provide the concrete detail often wanting in federalism scholarship. The findings deconstruct assumptions about federalism made by theorists of all stripes, from formalist to modern. Federalism's commonly invoked attributes--including autonomy, cooperation, experimentation, and variation--have not been dependent on any particular architecture of either state-federal separation or entanglement, even though theorists typically call on "federalism" to produce them. Instead, these attributes have been generated in ACA implementation across virtually every kind of governance model--that is, regardless whether states expand Medicaid; get waivers; or operate their own insurance exchanges or let the federal government do it for them. This makes it extraordinarily challenging to measure which structural arrangements are most "federalist," especially because the various federalism attributes are not always present together. The study also uncovers major theoretical difficulties when it comes to healthcare: Without a clear conception of the U.S. healthcare system's goals, how can we know which structural arrangements serve it best, much less whether they are working? If healthcare federalism is a mechanism to produce particular policy outcomes, we should determine whether locating a particular facet of healthcare design in the states versus the federal government positively affects, for example, healthcare cost, access, or quality. If, instead, healthcare federalism serves structural aims regardless of policy ends--for instance, reserving power to states in the interest of sovereignty or checks and balances--we should examine whether it does in fact accomplish those goals, and we should justify why those goals outweigh the moral concerns that animate health policy. The ACA did not cause this conceptual confusion, but it retained and built on a fragmented healthcare landscape that already was riddled with structural and moral compromises. This does not mean that federalism is an empty concept or that it does not exist in the ACA. Federalism scholars tend to argue for particular structural arrangements based on prior goals and values. The ACA's architecture challenges whether any of these goals and values are unique to federalism or any particular expression of it. At the same time, the ACA's implementation is clearly a story about state leverage, intrastate democracy, and state policy autonomy within, not apart from, a national statutory scheme. Its implementation illustrates how federalism is a proxy for many ideas and challenges us to ask what we are really fighting over, or seeking, when we invoke the concept in healthcare and beyond.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2019. Final rule.

This final rule sets forth payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment and risk adjustment data validation programs; cost-sharing parameters; and user fees for Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State Exchanges on the Federal platform. It finalizes changes that provide additional flexibility to States to apply the definition of essential health benefits (EHB) to their markets, enhance the role of States regarding the certification of qualified health plans (QHPs); and provide States with additional flexibility in the operation and establishment of Exchanges, including the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges. It includes changes to standards related to Exchanges; the required functions of the SHOPs; actuarial value for stand-alone dental plans; the rate review program; the medical loss ratio program; eligibility and enrollment; exemptions; and other related topics.

Small Changes or Big Ones? The Case of Limits on Prescription Drug Copayments in California.

Despite standardization, advocates for various industries and certain patient needs continue to propose changes in coverage rules. Much of the advocacy is occurring at the state level with a focus on pharmaceutical coverage, such as equalizing cost sharing between oral and infused oncology drugs or setting limits on cost sharing for prescriptions.

Stabilizing individual health insurance markets with subsidized reinsurance.

Subsidized reinsurance represents a potentially important tool to help stabilize individual health insurance markets. This brief describes alternative forms of subsidized reinsurance and the mechanisms by which they spread risk and reduce premiums. It summarizes specific state initiatives and Congressional proposals that include subsidized reinsurance. It compares approaches to each other and to more direct subsidies of individual market enrollment. For a given amount of funding, a particular program's efficacy will depend on how it affects insurers' risk and the risk margins built into premiums, incentives for selecting or avoiding risks, incentives for coordinating and managing care, and the costs and complexity of administration. These effects warrant careful consideration by policymakers as they consider measures to achieve stability in the individual market in the long term.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Market Stabilization. Final rule.

This rule finalizes changes that will help stabilize the individual and small group markets and affirm the traditional role of State regulators. This final rule amends standards relating to special enrollment periods, guaranteed availability, and the timing of the annual open enrollment period in the individual market for the 2018 plan year; standards related to network adequacy and essential community providers for qualified health plans; and the rules around actuarial value requirements.

Extending Marketplace Tax Credits Would Make Coverage More Affordable for Middle-Income Adults.

ISSUE: Affordability of health coverage is a growing challenge for Americans facing rising premiums, deductibles, and copayments. The Affordable Care Act's tax credits make marketplace insurance more affordable for eligible lower-income individuals. However, individuals lose tax credits when their income exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty level, creating a steep cliff. GOALS: To analyze the effects of extending eligibility for tax credits to individuals with incomes above 400 percent of the federal poverty level. METHODS: We used RAND's COMPARE microsimulation model to examine changes in insurance coverage and health care spending. KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Extending tax-credit eligibility increases insurance enrollment by 1.2 million, at a total federal cost of $6.0 billion. Those who would benefit from the tax-credit extension are mostly middle-income adults ages 50 to 64. These new enrollees would be healthier than current enrollees their age, which would improve the risk pool and lower premiums. Eliminating the cliff at 400 percent of the federal poverty level is one policy option that may be considered to increase affordability of insurance.

If Congress Won't Salvage Reinsurance, State Waivers May Offer a Workaround.

Shards of a bipartisan effort to stabilize the individual health insurance markets emerged. They focused mostly on resurrecting the ACA cost-reduction payments and giving states flexibility to come up with their own ideas, like reinsurance, for shoring up the troubled individual market.

A bold proposal for Trumpcare 2.0.

It was notable that so many conservative activists and pundits rushed to abandon the Republican Party's promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare in the wake of Trumpcare's humiliating defeat in the House of Representatives.

Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act. Final rule.

This document provides the final text of regulations governing employee protection (retaliation or whistleblower) claims under section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act, which added section 18C to the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide protections to employees who may have been subject to retaliation for seeking assistance under certain affordability assistance provisions (for example, health insurance premium tax credits) or for reporting potential violations of the Affordable Care Act's consumer protections (for example, the prohibition on rescissions). An interim final rule (IFR) governing these provisions and request for comments was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2013. Thirteen comments were received; eleven were responsive to the IFR. This rule responds to those comments and establishes the final procedures and time frames for the handling of retaliation complaints under section 18C, including procedures and time frames for employee complaints to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), investigations by OSHA, appeals of OSHA determinations to an administrative law judge (ALJ) for a hearing de novo, hearings by ALJs, review of ALJ decisions by the Administrative Review Board (ARB) (acting on behalf of the Secretary of Labor), and judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's (Secretary's) final decision. It also sets forth the Secretary's interpretations of the Affordable Care Act whistleblower provision on certain matters.

Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment for Medicaid and CHIP. Final rule.

This final rule implements provisions of the Affordable Care Act that expand access to health coverage through improvements in Medicaid and coordination between Medicaid, CHIP, and Exchanges. This rule finalizes most of the remaining provisions from the "Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs, and Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing; Proposed Rule" that we published in the January 22, 2013, Federal Register. This final rule continues our efforts to assist states in implementing Medicaid and CHIP eligibility, appeals, and enrollment changes required by the Affordable Care Act.

Basic Health Program; Federal Funding Methodology for Program Years 2017 and 2018. Final methodology.

This document provides the methodology and data sources necessary to determine Federal payment amounts made in program years 2017 and 2018 to states that elect to establish a Basic Health Program under the Affordable Care Act to offer health benefits coverage to low-income individuals otherwise eligible to purchase coverage through Affordable Insurance Exchanges (hereinafter referred to as the Exchanges).

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2018; Amendments to Special Enrollment Periods and the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program. Final rule.

This final rule sets forth payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment program; cost-sharing parameters and cost-sharing reductions; and user fees for Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State-based Exchanges on the Federal platform. It also provides additional guidance relating to standardized options; qualified health plans; consumer assistance tools; network adequacy; the Small Business Health Options Programs; stand-alone dental plans; fair health insurance premiums; guaranteed availability and guaranteed renewability; the medical loss ratio program; eligibility and enrollment; appeals; consumer-operated and oriented plans; special enrollment periods; and other related topics.

Medicare Program; Conditions for Coverage for End-Stage Renal Disease Facilities--Third Party Payment. Interim final rule with comment period.

This interim final rule with comment period implements new requirements for Medicare-certified dialysis facilities that make payments of premiums for individual market health plans. These requirements apply to dialysis facilities that make such payments directly, through a parent organization, or through a third party. These requirements are intended to protect patient health and safety; improve patient disclosure and transparency; ensure that health insurance coverage decisions are not inappropriately influenced by the financial interests of dialysis facilities rather than the health and financial interests of patients; and protect patients from mid-year interruptions in coverage.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2017. Final rule.

This final rule sets forth payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors programs; cost-sharing parameters and cost-sharing reductions; and user fees for Federally-facilitated Exchanges. It also provides additional amendments regarding the annual open enrollment period for the individual market for the 2017 and 2018 benefit years; essential health benefits; cost sharing; qualified health plans; Exchange consumer assistance programs; network adequacy; patient safety; the Small Business Health Options Program; stand-alone dental plans; third-party payments to qualified health plans; the definitions of large employer and small employer; fair health insurance premiums; student health insurance coverage; the rate review program; the medical loss ratio program; eligibility and enrollment; exemptions and appeals; and other related topics.

How Has the Affordable Care Act Affected Health Insurers' Financial Performance?

Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act transformed the market for individual health insurance by changing how insurance is sold and by subsidizing coverage for millions of new purchasers. Insurers, who had no previous experience under these market conditions, competed actively but faced uncertainty in how to price their products. This issue brief uses newly available data to understand how health insurers fared financially during the ACA's first year of full reforms. Overall, health insurers' financial performance began to show some strain in 2014, but the ACA's reinsurance program substantially buffered the negative effects for most insurers. Although a quarter of insurers did substantially worse than others, experience under the new market rules could improve the accuracy of pricing decisions in subsequent years.

Who Needs Those ACA Exchanges?

9 million Americans buy health insurance outside the ACA exchanges. They make too much money to be eligible for subsidies and can often get coverage with a broader network of providers.