Free Daily Headlines :

  • COVID-19
  • Vaccine Info
  • Money
  • Politics
  • Education
  • Health
  • Justice
  • More
    • Environment
    • Economic Development
    • Gaming
    • Investigations
    • Social Services
    • TRANSPORTATION
  • Opinion
    • CT Viewpoints
    • CT Artpoints
DONATE
Reflecting Connecticut’s Reality.
    COVID-19
    Vaccine Info
    Money
    Politics
    Education
    Health
    Justice
    More
    Environment
    Economic Development
    Gaming
    Investigations
    Social Services
    TRANSPORTATION
    Opinion
    CT Viewpoints
    CT Artpoints

LET�S GET SOCIAL

Show your love for great stories and out standing journalism

Advisory panel says essential health benefits package must be affordable

  • Health
  • by Kaiser Health News
  • October 7, 2011
  • View as "Clean Read" "Exit Clean Read"

The government moved a step closer Friday toward defining what “essential benefits” would be offered by companies selling coverage to millions of Americans in new insurance exchanges.

In a 297-page report, the Institute of Medicine, a federal advisory panel, laid out criteria and methods the Department of Health and Human Services should use in developing the package. But, as expected, the report left to HHS the job of deciding specific benefits.

The panel said HHS must consider both cost and effectiveness of the package – including what the average cost of health insurance will be for small employers in 2014, when the federal health law fully takes effect and exchanges launch.

But one of the outside experts asked by the panel to review the report said in an interview that its emphasis on affordability could mean less robust benefits.  HHS said yesterday it hasn’t set a date for issuing rules, though they’re expected to come out in 2012.

“They made affordability the first imperative here,” said Sara Rosenbaum, health policy professor at George Washington University. “That means very limited coverage for people because of the underlying cost of health care.”

She said the panel, in advising that a benefit be medical and not educational or social, “leaves the door open to the kinds of denials” of coverage “that Congress said should not happen.”

Some insurers, for example, have refused to provide certain types of autism treatment because they have deemed them educational in nature rather than medical.

Another outside reviewer, Gail Wilensky, senior fellow at Project Hope and former head of the Medicare program under President H.W. Bush, said she was pleasantly surprised the panel emphasized affordability. “I was pleased with the report,” she said, “because if you blow it on the affordability side you blow the whole goal of extending coverage.”

The report laid out broad goals:

“The (package) must be affordable, maximize the number of people with insurance, protect the most vulnerable individuals, promote better care, ensure stewardship of limited financial resources by focusing on high value services of proven effectiveness, promote shared responsibility for improving our health, and address the medical concerns of greatest importance to us all,” said the report.

When deciding on benefits, the panel said, HHS should take into account whether they would result in “meaningful improvement in outcomes” and are “supported by a sufficient evidence base.”

The panel said the federal government should allow states that administer their own exchanges to make changes to the list of essential benefits as long as those variations are consistent with the health law and are as comprehensive as the required benefits list.

The rules will apply to all policies offered to individuals and small businesses on the health exchanges created under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. About 26 million Americans will get coverage through the new exchanges by 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Larger employers could also be affected by the list of essential benefits. “Whatever the government deems to be essential benefits could be seen by employees and others as a benefit floor for all plans, including employer plans, over time,” said Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy at the National Business Group on Health.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she would review the panel’s report and hold a series of “listening sessions” across the country to get public comment.

America’s Health Insurance Plans CEO Karen Ignagni applauded the report for its attention to cost and medical effectiveness. “It is critical that the final regulation maintain flexibility and affordability for consumers and employers,” she said.

The Obama administration faces a balancing act: The benefits package must be broad enough to be comprehensive but not so broad as to be unaffordable to policyholders and employers – or a burden on taxpayers.

Under the law, the government will subsidize premiums for individuals on a sliding scale up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level and offer tax credits to some small businesses. If the premiums are too high, even with subsidies, some people instead might opt to pay the penalty imposed on those who fail to purchase health insurance once the exchanges begin operation.

The health law outlines 10 broad categories of coverage – such as hospital and emergency services, prescription drugs, childbirth and pediatric care – but it leaves to HHS the specifics of what must be in the benefits package.  The law does require, however, that the package be equal to the benefits provided in a typical plan offered to workers with employment-based coverage.

Policies also must limit out-of-pocket-costs — the amount policyholders pay in deductibles and copayments — to no more than $6,000 per year for an individual or $12,000 for a family.

Currently, benefit packages are established by insurers, sometimes in conjunction with employers who are purchasing them. Insurance plans typically cover a wide range of services, from emergency room care to hospitalization and doctor office visits, provided that the treatments are deemed medically necessary. Some treatments, such as cosmetic surgery, are generally not covered.

Advocates have succeeded in getting states to require coverage for specific treatments and conditions. Some states, for example, mandate coverage for infertility treatments, autism therapy, Lyme disease, hearing aids or prosthetic limbs. Some states specify what specialists must be covered, ranging from acupuncturists and dentists to massage therapists or pastoral counselors.

Under the health law, states can continue to impose coverage requirements not included in the essential benefits package – but they would be responsible for paying insurers the additional costs for those benefits in policies sold through state exchanges.  Just how specific HHS will be in defining essential benefits remains unclear. The advisory report recommended that HHS be as specific as possible.

–Phil Galewitz and Julie Appleby, Kaiser Health News

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Sign up for CT Mirror's free daily news summary.

Free to Read. Not Free to Produce.

The Connecticut Mirror is a nonprofit newsroom. 90% of our revenue comes from people like you. If you value our reporting please consider making a donation. You'll enjoy reading CT Mirror even more knowing you helped make it happen.

YES, I'LL DONATE TODAY

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kaiser Health News

SEE WHAT READERS SAID

RELATED STORIES
Bill that would eliminate CT’s religious exemption from mandatory vaccines clears House
by Jenna Carlesso

The measure passed by a vote of 90 to 53 after 16 hours of debate.

Connecticut’s COVID restrictions to end on May 19
by Mark Pazniokas

Connecticut will end its COVID-19 restrictions in two steps: May 1 for outdoor activities and May 19 for everything else.

Biden moves to overturn Trump birth control rules
by Julie Rovner | Kaiser Health News

The Biden administration has formally proposed the repeal of Trump-era regulations barring abortion referrals.

New Britain residents weren’t getting vaccinated. So city officials got creative.
by Dave Altimari

The city's efforts are a microcosm of what is happening across the country as officials struggle to vaccinate vulnerable residents.

Can independent primary care doctors survive dominance of hospital health systems?
by Peggy McCarthy | C-HIT.ORG

hospital systems and private businesses are increasingly buying private medical practices and taking over their business operations.

Support Our Work

Show your love for great stories and outstanding journalism.

$
Select One
  • Monthly
  • Yearly
  • Once
Artpoint painter
CT ViewpointsCT Artpoints
Opinion Playing politics with people’s healthcare is always wrong
by Jody Barr, Jan Hochadel, Jeff Leake, Dave Glidden, Carl Chism and Mike Holmes

For the past decade, towns, school boards and cities throughout the state have been able to provide their employees high-quality healthcare through the Connecticut Partnership […]

Opinion A pandemic lesson for CSCU leaders: affordable, accessible childcare is critical
by Brandy Sellitto

If there can be anything good that has come from the last year and the horrors of living through this pandemic, perhaps it is the renewed focus on the need for affordable and accessible childcare. As a teen mom, I know first-hand the need for access to safe, reliable, and developmentally appropriate childcare at an affordable price.

Opinion Children’s mental health needs continue to soar: The second pandemic lawmakers must address
by Gabriella Izzo

“She was my happy kid,” a parent told me when I cared for her child who was experiencing a mental health crisis. My patient recovered medically within a few days, however, she remained in the hospital for over a week waiting for placement at a psychiatric rehabilitation facility. We must improve our mental health system and you can be a critical part of making that happen.

Opinion H.B. 6620 — A closer reading of a flawed legislative proposal
by Ann M Mulready

The Connecticut Association for Reading Research (CARR) is deeply concerned regarding H.B. 6620, An Act Concerning the Right to Read and Addressing Certain Opportunity Gaps. It is based on a concept that is seriously problematic in that it subordinates comprehension to fluency.

Artwork Grand guidance
by Anne:Gogh

In a world of systemic oppression aimed towards those of darker skintones – representation matters. We are more than our equity elusive environments, more than […]

Artwork Shea
by Anthony Valentine

Shea is a story about race and social inequalities that plague America. It is a narrative that prompts the question, “Do you know what it’s […]

Artwork The Declaration of Human Rights
by Andres Chaparro

Through my artwork I strive to create an example of ideas that reflect my desire to raise social consciousness, and cultural awareness. Jazz music is […]

Artwork ‘A thing of beauty. Destroy it forever’
by Richard DiCarlo | Derby

During times like these it’s often fun to revisit something familiar and approach things with a different slant. I have been taking some Pop culture […]

Twitter Feed
A Twitter List by CTMirror

Engage

  • Reflections Tickets & Sponsorships
  • Events
  • Donate
  • Newsletter Sign-Up
  • Submit to Viewpoints
  • Submit to ArtPoints
  • Economic Indicator Dashboard
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Commenting Guidelines
  • Legal Notices
  • Contact Us

About

  • About CT Mirror
  • Announcements
  • Board
  • Staff
  • Sponsors and Funders
  • Donors
  • Friends of CT Mirror
  • History
  • Financial
  • Policies
  • Strategic Plan

Opportunity

  • Advertising and Sponsorship
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Use of Photography
  • Work for Us

Go Deeper

  • Steady Habits Podcast
  • Economic Indicator Dashboard
  • Five Things

The Connecticut News Project, Inc. 1049 Asylum Avenue, Hartford, CT 06105. Phone: 860-218-6380

© Copyright 2021, The Connecticut News Project. All Rights Reserved. Website by Web Publisher PRO