My Zimbio
Top Stories Health For Louisiana: McCarran-Ferguson Act
Showing posts with label McCarran-Ferguson Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCarran-Ferguson Act. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Comparison of House and Senate Versions of Health Reform Bill

· 0 comments

BusinessWeek.com published this comparison of the House and Senate versions of the health insurance reform bill:

------
The Senate Democratic bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act):
WHO'S COVERED: About 94 percent of legal residents under age 65 -- compared with 83 percent now. Government subsidies to help buy coverage start in 2014. Of the remaining 24 million people under age 65 left uninsured, about one-third would be illegal immigrants.
COST: Coverage provisions cost $871 billion over 10 years.
HOW IT'S PAID FOR: Fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers. Medicare payroll tax increased to 2.35 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals, $250,000 for couples. A 10 percent sales tax on tanning salons, to be paid by the person soaking up the rays. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Forty percent excise tax on insurance companies, keyed to premiums paid on health care plans costing more than $8,500 annually for individuals and $23,000 for families. Fees for employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on people who fail to purchase coverage.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Almost everyone must get coverage through an employer, on their own or through a government plan. Exemptions for economic hardship. Those who are obligated to buy coverage and refuse to do so would pay a fine starting at $95 in 2014 and rising to $750.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Not required to offer coverage, but companies with more than 50 employees would pay a fee of $750 per employee if the government ends up subsidizing employees' coverage.
SUBSIDIES: Tax credits for individuals and families likely making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which computes to $88,200 for a family of four. Tax credits for small employers.
BENEFITS PACKAGE: All plans sold to individuals and small businesses would have to cover basic benefits. The government would set four levels of coverage. The least generous would pay an estimated 60 percent of health care costs per year; the most generous would cover an estimated 90 percent.
INSURANCE INDUSTRY RESTRICTIONS: Starting in 2014: no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. No higher premiums allowed for pre-existing conditions or gender. Limits on higher premiums based on age and family size. Starting upon enactment of legislation: children up to age 26 can stay on parents insurance; no lifetime limits on coverage.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: In place of a government-run insurance option, the estimated 26 million Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the same office that manages health coverage for federal employees and members of Congress. Those plans would be privately owned, but one of them would have to be operated on a nonprofit basis, as many Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are now.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Self-employed people, uninsured individuals and small businesses could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools. Would generally encourage employees to keep work-provided coverage.

DRUGS: Grants 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. Drug companies contribute $80 billion over 10 years with the majority of the money used to limit the prescription coverage gap in Medicare.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Income eligibility levels likely to be standardized to 133 percent of poverty -- $29,327 a year for a family of four -- for parents, children and pregnant women. Federal government would pick up the full cost of the expansion during the first three years. States could negotiate with insurers to arrange coverage for people with incomes slightly higher than the cutoff for Medicaid.

LONG-TERM CARE: New voluntary long-term care insurance program would provide a basic benefit designed to help seniors and disabled people avoid going into nursing homes.

ANTITRUST: Maintains the health insurance industry's decades-old antitrust exemption.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: Would be barred from receiving government subsidies or using their own money to buy coverage offered by private companies in the exchanges.

ABORTION: The bill tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer funds and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for the procedure. In plans that do cover abortion, beneficiaries would have to pay for it separately, and those funds would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money. Moreover, individual states would be able to prohibit abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange, after passing specific legislation to that effect. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.
--------
The House bill (Affordable Health Care for America Act):
WHO'S COVERED: About 96 percent of legal residents under age 65 -- compared with 83 percent now. Government subsidies to help buy coverage start in 2013. About one-third of the remaining 18 million people under age 65 left uninsured would be illegal immigrants.
COST: The Congressional Budget Office says the bill's cost of expanding insurance coverage over 10 years is $1.055 trillion. The net cost is $894 billion, factoring in penalties on individuals and employers who don't comply with new requirements. That's under President Barack Obama's $900 billion goal. However, those figures leave out a variety of new costs in the bill, including increased prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, so the measure may be around $1.2 trillion.
HOW IT'S PAID FOR: $460 billion over the next decade from new income taxes on single people making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million. The original House bill taxed individuals making $280,000 a year and couples making more than $350,000, but the threshold was increased in response to lawmakers' concerns that the taxes would hit too many people and small businesses.
There are also more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; a new $20 billion fee on medical device makers; $13 billion from limiting contributions to flexible spending accounts; sizable penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage; and a mix of other corporate taxes and fees.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals must have insurance, enforced through a tax penalty of 2.5 percent of income. People can apply for hardship waivers if coverage is unaffordable.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payrolls under $500,000 annually are exempt -- a change from the original $250,000 level to accommodate concerns of moderate Democrats -- and the penalty is phased in for companies with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000.
Small businesses -- those with 10 or fewer workers -- get tax credits to help them provide coverage.

SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level, or $88,000 for a family of four, would get sliding-scale subsidies to help them buy coverage. The subsidies would begin in 2013.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Beginning in 2013, through a new Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers. It could be expanded to large employers over time. States could opt to operate their own exchanges in place of the national exchange if they follow federal rules.

BENEFITS PACKAGE: A committee would recommend a so-called essential benefits package including preventive services. Out-of-pocket costs would be capped. The new benefit package would be the basic benefit package offered in the exchange.
INSURANCE INDUSTRY RESTRICTIONS: Starting in 2013, no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. No higher premiums allowed for pre-existing conditions or gender. Limits on higher premiums based on age.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new public plan available through the insurance exchanges would be set up and run by the health and human services secretary. Democrats originally designed the plan to pay Medicare rates plus 5 percent to doctors. But the final version -- preferred by moderate lawmakers -- would let the HHS secretary negotiate rates with providers.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded to cover all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $33,075 per year for a family of four. The federal government would pick up the full cost of the expansion in 2013 and 2014; thereafter the federal government would pay 91 percent and states would pay 9 percent.

DRUGS: Grants 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. Phases out the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage by 2019. Requires the HHS secretary to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

LONG-TERM CARE: New voluntary long-term care insurance program would provide a basic benefit designed to help seniors and disabled people avoid going into nursing homes.

ANTITRUST: Would strip the health insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price-fixing and bid rigging. The bill also would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to look into the health insurance industry at its own initiative.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: Would be barred from receiving government subsidies but permitted to use their own money to buy coverage offered by private companies in the exchange.
ABORTION: Private companies in the exchange could not offer plans covering abortion if those plans received federal subsidy money. Most plans in the exchange would be affected, because most consumers in the exchange would be using federal subsidy money to buy coverage. The new government plan could not offer abortion coverage. Insurance companies would be permitted to offer supplemental abortion coverage in separate plans that people could buy with their own money. Use of federal money for abortion coverage would be limited to cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life.

Fix The Senate Health Care Bill

· 0 comments

 Fix The Senate Health Care Bill

For those of you following the continued drama surrounding the health care reform bill(s) floating around Washington, here's a summary of progress to date. In order for this bill to become law, both houses of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives) put forward their own preferred versions of the bill. Once each house of congress passes its individual version of the bill, the two versions will be sent to a committee comprised of members of both houses, from both Democratic and Republican backgrounds. This committee will determine which parts of the proposed bills to include in the final bill, and which parts to discard. In other words, the committee will compose the final bill.

Currently the House of Representatives has put forward a version of the health reform bill that aggressively tackles issues such as the U.S.'s lack of public insurance options, and the fact that insurance companies are currently exempt from the usual anti-trust laws by which other industries must abide. The Senate, after much debate and a spoiled filibuster, is in the final throes of putting forward its own, significantly less progressive, version of their bill.

Below are five main ways that the Senate version of the health reform bill differs from the House version.

Five Critical Flaws in the Senate Health Care Bill

The Senate bill would:

#1—Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.1
#2—Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses.2

#3—Impose dangerous restrictions on women's reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill.3
#4—Tax American workers' health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach.4 
#5—Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws. Under current law, insurance companies are actually exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, but the Senate bill leaves it in place.5
Of course, these aren't the only problems with the bill. Most glaringly, both the Senate and House bill would leave millions uninsured,6 a far cry from the vision of universal coverage so many of us have fought for. That remains a long-term goal.
But these five things need to be fixed immediately—and we need to spread the word to make sure House and Senate leadership and the White House get the message we're counting on them to craft a final bill with these key fixes...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:
1. "Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Public Plan," The New York Times, December 19, 2009


"The House Bill and the Senate Bill," The Now! Blog, December 21, 2009


"Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009





"Why a public health insurance option is key to saving costs," Economic Policy Institute, June 25, 2009


2. "Assessment of Affordability Provisions in the Exchange in House (H.R. 3962) and Senate (H.R. 3590) Health Reform Bills," Health Care for America Now


"Finishing Reform Right: Fixing affordability before the President signs a health care bill," The Now! Blog, December 22, 2009


"Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Individual Mandate," The New York Times, December 19, 2009




"The House Bill and the Senate Bill," The Now! Blog, December 21, 2009


"Senate health bill is launch pad," Jacob Hacker, December 22, 2009


3. "Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Abortion," The New York Times, December 19, 2009


4. "Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Paying for the Proposals," The New York Times, December 19, 2009


5. "Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Insurance Regulations," The New York Times, December 19, 2009


6. "H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act," Congressional Budget Office, November 20, 2009


"Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," Congressional Budget Office, November 18, 2009


"REPORT: How the Senate Bill Compares to Other Reform Legislation," Think Progress, November 19, 2009




Above list and sources supplied by MoveOn.org

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Why Insurance Companies Are Different, And Why They Need To Be Regulated More Than Your Job

· 0 comments

Much has been made of “insurance companies’ right to make a profit” and “treating them like everyone else” lately. What this attitude fails to take into account is the series of massive favors that we, as a society, do for the health insurance industry. See, we are allowed to add regulations and requirements because we have exempted health insurance companies from the Federal Anti-Trust Act (the act that prevents an industry from having a monopoly on the entire market). Let’s say that again.

We have exempted health insurance companies from the Federal Anti-Trust Act. The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, 15 U.S.C. § 1011, allows state law to regulate the business of insurance without federal government interference, though it does allow the Federal Government to pass laws specifically aimed at the insurance industry. It just exempts them from non-insurance-specific Federal Laws. Including anti-trust laws.

This is important because it means that we have not required health insurers to have competition or behave in a competitive manner. As such, “the market,” which everyone screams will save us from the horrible health care companies, has no bearing. “The market” requires competition. So it’s kind of like if we stopped regulating prices on energy companies completely. How much do you think you’d be paying for electricity if there weren’t rules about that sort of thing? See, that’s a trade-off. We give Entergy, or SoCal Edison, or whoever, a monopoly in a certain area. We then regulate their prices and what they supply to be sure they don’t take advantage. But we haven’t been doing enough of that in the United States in the health insurance arena.

Some facts about the anti-competitive nature of health care in America in 2008, according to the United States Government Accountability Office:

• The median market share of the largest carrier in the small group market was about 47 percent, with a range from about 21 percent in Arizona to about 96 percent in Alabama. In 31 of the 39 states supplying market share information, the top carrier had a market share of a third or more.

• The five largest carriers in the small group market, when combined, represented three quarters or more of the market in 34 of the 39 states supplying this information, and they represented 90 percent or more in 23 of these states.

• Thirty-six of the 44 states supplying information on the top carrier identified a Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) carrier as the largest carrier, and in all but 1 of the remaining 8 states, a BCBS carrier was among the five largest carriers.

• The median market share of all the BCBS carriers in the 38 states supplying this information was about 51 percent, with a range of less than 5 percent in Vermont and Wisconsin and more than 90 percent in Alabama and North Dakota.

This is unacceptable. A lack of competition coupled with a lack of regulation means higher costs to consumers and skyrocketing profits for companies. Which helps explain why 17.6 percent of our GDP is spent on health care, and why the average family health care plan has increased from $6,654 per year to $13,378 per year in the last decade. That’s over double, for those of you counting.

Nationally, the average premium for health insurance rose five times as much as median worker wages in the last ten years.

If health insurance companies want an exemption, they will live with regulation. If not, the numbers above show that they would already be under court order to split up if it weren’t for anti-trust exemptions. We should stop letting them be ungrateful, gluttonous children and show them what life is like for the rest of the businesses in this country. It’s cutthroat, it’s tough to scrape out a living, and it involves needing actual business acumen and sense.

Or, they can simply jump on board with reform and regulation. It seems like that would be in all of our best interests.