New health insurance rule aims to deliver on Trump promise
Associated Press, FOx New, January 2018
WASHINGTON — Striving to fulfill a campaign promise, the Trump administration on Thursday proposed regulations to facilitate the interstate sale of health insurance policies that cost less but may not cover as much.
The complex proposal from the Labor Department aims to deliver on President Donald Trump’s long-standing pledge to increase competition and lower costs by promoting the sale of health plans across state lines. Yet its success depends on the actions of insurers, state consumer protection regulators, plan sponsors and customers themselves. Some already have concerns.
Frustrated in its efforts to repeal the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, the administration is pursuing regulations to change the insurance marketplace.
The new rule would make it easier for groups, or associations, to sponsor health plans that don’t have to meet all consumer protection and benefit requirements of the Obama law. Those requirements improve coverage, but also raise premiums.
Because health insurance, like real estate, reflects wide variation in local prices, it’s not immediately clear whether an insurer could charge Texas premiums for policies sold to people in Manhattan.
Insurance industry groups are skeptical of Trump’s idea. Patient groups are concerned about losing protections. Some state regulators object to federal interference. Some experts foresee potential legal challenges.
In a recent interview, Trump predicted that insurance markets would be transformed by the combination of this expected proposal, often referred to as “association health plans,” and the GOP’s recent repeal of the health law’s requirement that most people get health insurance or risk fines.
“So now I have associations,” Trump told The New York Times last week. “I have private insurance companies coming and will sell private health care plans to people through associations. That’s gonna be millions and millions of people. People have no idea how big that is. And by the way, and for that, we’ve ended `across state lines.’ So we have competition.”
Trump appeared to be referring to current obstacles that deter a health insurance company in one state from marketing to individual customers in another state. Some of those barriers have to do with state regulations that differ in the kinds of benefits that insurers must cover. For example, one state may require robust coverage for children with autism, while another may not.
Under the administration’s proposal, health plans sponsored by associations would gain enhanced status under a federal law that generally exempts large employer plans from state regulation. Experts are poring over the proposal to determine precisely to what degree such exemptions would apply to the new plans.
“The goal of the rule-making is to expand access to affordable health coverage, especially among small employers and self-employed individuals, by removing undue restrictions on the establishment and maintenance of association health plans” under federal law, the proposal said.
The Labor Department said up to 11 million people who are self-employed or work for small businesses could benefit. Association plans, called “Small Business Health Plans” in the proposal, would be open to small employers and sole proprietors and their families. They could be organized on the lines of a geographic area or an industry.
The department said such plans would not be able to charge individuals higher premiums because of health issues or turn down applicants with medical problems. Interested parties will have 60 days to comment on the proposal.
The main insurance industry groups, along with organizations representing patients and consumers, worry that the administration’s approach could siphon healthy people away from the health law’s insurance markets, creating a spiral of rising premiums for people who need comprehensive benefits.
“We are concerned that this could create or expand alternative, parallel markets for health coverage, which would lead to higher premiums for consumers, particularly those with pre-existing conditions,” according to a letter last month to state regulators, signed by America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. “Further, these actions destabilize the health insurance markets that guarantee access to comprehensive health coverage regardless of health status.”
Even before Thursday’s development, Pennsylvania’s acting insurance commissioner, Jessica Altman, had her own concerns. “Generally speaking, these types of plans are exempt from state law and outside my jurisdiction,” the Democratic appointee said in an interview. “That means any issues that consumers have, I won’t be able to help them. More and more people would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I think state regulators would say we really do it better.”
Categories
- Benefits Resources
- Bonding
- BOP
- Business Insurance
- Commercial Auto
- Commercial Property
- Company News
- Construction
- Crime Insurance
- Cyber Insurance
- Directors & Officers
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Practice Liability Insurance
- Entertainment
- General Liability
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare
- Healthcare Reform
- Homeowners Insurance
- Hospitality
- Manufacturing
- Medical Malpractice
- Mining & Energy
- Nightclubs
- Personal Auto
- Personal Insurance
- Professional
- Restaurants
- Retail & Wholesale
- Risk Management Resources
- Safety Topics
- SBA Bonds
- Security
- Seminars
- Technology
- Tourism
- Transportation
- Uncategorized
- Workers Compensation
Archives
- May 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- February 2013
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- November 2008
- August 2008