NY Times : Health Law Fails to Keep Prices Low

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Health Law Fails to Keep Prices Low in Rural Areas

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-law-fails-keep-prices-022038451.html

Of the roughly 2,500 counties served by the federal exchanges, more than half, or 58 percent, have plans offered by just one or two insurance carriers, according to an analysis by The Times of county-level data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. In about 530 counties, only a single insurer is participating.

The analysis suggests that the ambitions of the Affordable Care Act to increase competition have unfolded unevenly, at least in the early going, and have not addressed many of the factors that contribute to high prices. Insurance companies are reluctant to enter challenging new markets, experts say, because medical costs are high, dominant insurers are difficult to unseat, and powerful hospital systems resist efforts to lower rates.

“There’s nothing in the structure of the Affordable Care Act which really deals with that problem,” said John Holahan, a fellow at the Urban Institute, who noted that many factors determine costs in a given market. “I think that all else being equal, premiums will clearly be higher when there’s not that competition.”

The Obama administration has said 95 percent of Americans live in areas where there are at least two insurers in the exchanges. But many experts say two might not be enough to create competition that would help lower prices.

For example, in Wyoming, two insurers are offering plans at prices that are higher than in neighboring Montana, where a third carrier is seen as a factor in keeping prices lower.

It is unclear how the online marketplaces might evolve over time. Many large insurers are closely watching what happens in the first year to decide whether to more aggressively pursue new markets. In the meantime, problems with the healthcare.gov Web site are making it harder for them to know whether the exchanges’ slow start is the result of technical difficulties or more serious underlying problems, such as a lack of consumer demand, that would discourage them from entering.

In some cases, competition varies markedly across county lines. In Monroe County, Fla., which includes the Florida Keys, two insurers, Cigna and Florida Blue, offer plans on the federal exchanges. In neighboring Miami-Dade County, there are seven companies, including Aetna and Humana, two of the nation’s largest players.

In rural Baker County, Ga., where there is only one insurer, a 50-year-old shopping for a silver plan would pay at least $644.05 before federal subsidies. (Plans range in price and levels of coverage from bronze to platinum, with silver a middle option.) A 50-year-old in Atlanta, where there are four carriers, could pay $320.06 for a comparable plan.

________________________________________________

Bottom line = More evidence ACA is a lemon. We the People have been sold a Lemon. Correction...We the People have been Mandated to buy a Lemon.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Crashed~N2~Me

[JohnR! 5,495]

Health Law Fails to Keep Prices Low in Rural Areas

For example, in Wyoming, two insurers are offering plans at prices that are higher than in neighboring Montana, where a third carrier is seen as a factor in keeping prices lower.

In rural Baker County, Ga., where there is only one insurer, a 50-year-old shopping for a silver plan would pay at least $644.05 before federal subsidies. (Plans range in price and levels of coverage from bronze to platinum, with silver a middle option.) A 50-year-old in Atlanta, where there are four carriers, could pay $320.06 for a comparable plan.

________________________________________________

Partisanship at its best... The GnOP has been too busy voting against the ACA over and over again that they forgot to vote for their own bill...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/657/allow-purchase-of-health-insurance-across-state-li/

GOP Pledge-O-Meter

Allow purchase of health insurance across state lines

Will "allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside of the state in which they live." - PROMISE BROKEN

Sources:

GOP Pledge to America

Subjects: Health Care, Regulation, States

Updates:

No progress on Republican bill

Updated: Thursday, November 8th, 2012 | By Molly Moorhead

Republican lawmakers sought to pass a law to allow people to buy insurance outside the state where they live with the idea it would increase competition and drive down prices.

"Republicans support the idea because they believe one reason health care costs are high is that some states impose too stringent regulation on insurers; if their state residents can shop for cheaper coverage from out-of-state insurance, they argue it will promote competition, enhance choice and reduce costs,” said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

Democrats, on the other hand, take a skeptical view of lower regulation.

"They worry about a race to the bottom; insurers selling inadequate insurance plans that evade state regulations and that skim off the healthiest customers, making everyone else's insurance more expensive,” Oberlander said.

Interestingly, the health care law allows sales of insurance across state lines, but it happens only if insurers adhere to stricter regulation.

According to the Urban Institute, a think tank focusing on poverty and social issues, the law "requires all states to comply with a minimum level of insurance regulation, and cross state sales would not be permitted in a state unless that state affirmatively joined a compact with one or more other states.”

Oberlander added that it's unclear how many states will choose to set up such compacts.

Meanwhile, Blackburn's bill in the House hasn't moved in more than a year. It was referred to a subcommittee in February 2011 and has withered on the vine.

Allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines is now the law of the land, at least in the form Democrats favor it. House Republicans have a different version, but they've taken no action on their own bill.

We rate this a Promise Broken.

Sources:

Urban Institute, "Does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Permit the Purchase of Health Insurance Across State Lines?”

THOMAS, H.R. 371, accessed Nov.2, 2012

Email interview with Jonathan Oberlander of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Nov. 2, 2012

House bill on selling insurance across state lines will have to overcome divided government

Updated: Monday, August 8th, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

House Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, as part of their proposals to repeal the Democratic health care law and implement their own proposals.

Sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., the Health Care Choice Act of 2011 would repeal major parts of the health care reform bill and "generally allow individuals to purchase health coverage licensed in other states if the insurer meets solvency standards and provides independent external appeals procedures for benefit disputes," according to a committee summary.

A House subcommittee held a hearing on the matter in May. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Md., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation would help consumers in states that put too many requirements on health insurers.

"Consumers are forced to buy a Cadillac health plan; they aren't even given the option of something that better fits their needs," Upton said in a prepared statement. "As a result, many individuals choose to go without any health coverage because of these costly mandates."

A representative from President Barack Obama's administration said that the 2010 health care law already allows for insurance plans to be sold across state lines. "The Affordable Care Act allows health care to be sold across state lines when both states agree and consumer protections are maintained," said Steven Larsen of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid in his testimony. "Without the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act, we run the risk of creating an environment where there is a 'race to the bottom' in which insurers have an incentive to sell plans from the state with fewest consumer protections."

We weren't able to find any specific comments from the Obama administration on this bill. But because it would overturn large portions of the president's signature health law, it seems like the president would veto the bill, even if it were able to pass the Senate. The White House has formally stated it would veto other bills that attempted to overturn the health care law.

In summary, the House Republicans have introduced legislation to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. But it hasn't received a vote from the full House. Even if it does pass the House, it seems unlikely that it will become law, given that Democrats control the Senate and the presidency. We rate this promise Stalled.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Gegel

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

I read the entire 1 year old politifact all the way to the bottom =

"Even if it does pass the House, it seems unlikely that it will become law, given that Democrats control the Senate and the presidency."

(say it with a Pirate voice since it's almost Halloween) = Those Dems...alwaz ruining good stuff. Grrrrrrr.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Crashed~N2~Me

[JohnR! 5,495]

I read the entire 1 year old politifact all the way to the bottom =

"Even if it does pass the House, it seems unlikely that it will become law, given that Democrats control the Senate and the presidency."

(say it with a Pirate voice since it's almost Halloween) = Those Dems...alwaz ruining good stuff. Grrrrrrr.

Which begs the question... If they knew their bill would help Americans get health insurance at better rates, why not push it through as part of the compromise for the ACA?

They spared no effort to try and repeal what is already signed into law and gave no thought or push to their own legislation. IMHO that would be far more sensible than just being spiteful at the expense of the American people.

I appreciate that the title of your thread was chopped to omit the qualifier 'IN RURAL AREAS' but all the same, even if only part of the population should the GnOP representative not consider the inhabitants of our rural areas Americans, therefore worthy of their service?

Edited October 24, 2013 by Gegel

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Which begs the question... If they knew their bill would help Americans get health insurance at better rates, why not push it through as part of the compromise for the ACA?

They spared no effort to try and repeal what is already signed into law and gave no thought or push to their own legislation. IMHO that would be far more sensible than just being spiteful at the expense of the American people.

I appreciate that the title of your thread was chopped to omit the qualifier 'IN RURAL AREAS' but all the same, even if only part of the population should the GnOP representative not consider the inhabitants of our rural areas Americans, therefore worthy of their service?

Who really knows...but it seems GOP does not think they're acting spiteful...they think they are serving their constituents and America's better interest = Kill ACA & make Dems look bad in the process.

I Imagine Boehner was stripped & flogged when he stated - "law of the land".

[JohnR! 5,495]

Who really knows...but it seems GOP does not think they're acting spiteful...they think they are serving their constituents and America's better interest = Kill ACA & make Dems look bad in the process.

I Imagine Boehner was stripped & flogged when he stated - "law of the land".

Whereas we all know they are not. They had a bill that would soften the blow of the ACA for rural customers and they refused to push it through, despite making a promise to the American people.

Perhaps they do not think of rural Americans as their constituents, or they simply can't be bothered with Americans whose pockets are not a mile deep.

I am sure Bohner got flogged by bringing to the TBs attention that the ACA was signed and therefore has become 'law of the land'. The concept seems to escape the TBs who keep cruzing up everything they touch.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Gegel

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Whereas we all know they are not. They had a bill that would soften the blow of the ACA for rural customers and they refused to push it through, despite making a promise to the American people.

Perhaps they do not think of rural Americans as their constituents, or they simply can't be bothered with Americans whose pockets are not a mile deep.

I don't think either party is very gung ho to help the other. ACA belongs to O & the Dems. I doubt the Pubs will do anything to help improve it until they have no other choice.

[Danno 1,228]

When it was debated, I predicted (right here on VJ) it would cost more and be screwed up.

I further predict it will have to morph into something else with more Gov't.

It will also not only save the Gov't, it will ballon even greater our debt.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

I am sure Bohner got flogged by bringing to the TBs attention that the ACA was signed and therefore has become 'law of the land'. The concept seems to escape the TBs who keep cruzing up everything they touch.

I notice you like to use word association too. It seems some are too good for it but I think it provides characterization in nutshells.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

When it was debated, I predicted (right here on VJ) it would cost more and be screwed up.

I further predict it will have to morph into something else with more Gov't.

It will also not only save the Gov't, it will ballon even greater our debt.

Agreed. I have a paranoid big brother thought developing = Wonder how long ACA will be a mechanism to control We the People & strip more of our freedoms.

Here's the Ad campaign I'm thinking....

ACA!! Controlling health cost 1 Constitutional Amendment at a time!

(I just need a jingle & I'm Bank!)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We will sooner or later come to realize that the only way to have effective competition across the nation is to introduce a national competitor to the echanges. We already have a national health insurance system that could easily do this. t's called Medicare. Make it one of the options on the exchanges for people to chose from. Medicare kows every local health care market across the nation. Put up that public option - that'll light the fire under the collective arses of insurance comanies that appears to be lacking.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Romney care works fine in Massachusetts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Romney care works fine in Massachusetts.

It works well if everyone is committed to make it work. The states where the federal government is running the program are those where Republican legislatures and governors have done all they can to sabotage the program. Now they want to complain that the sabotage leads to the loss of some of the benefits of the law. I'm not surprised that some of the benefits do not materialize as they could. That's what Republicans wanted. Now that's what they've got. They should deal with it. Same here in Florida. I think they will find out that the people don't think it's funny that a million Floridians who could have had health insuranc enext year will have to go without because the Republicans in Tallahassee said they will have to do without.

That impacts not only the over 1 million Floridians left in the rain, it also increases health care cost for everyone else. And Scott and Weatherford and Gaetz are the guys responsible for that. Floridians know this and I don't think they'll forget next year. We just had a special election near here to fill a vacant seat in the legislature. The district that Republicans held for decades turned blue. And the Democrat that took the seat ran on the absurdity the Florida Republicans have committed in sabotaging Obamacare. It resonated with voters in the conservative district.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The ironic thing is that here in MA, it was a Republican governor who got the system implemented. As liberal as this state is, I would have thought the Democrats would have been the ones to do it. But as you said, it takes commitment to make it work and that commitment was made here. IMO, it was a good model to use.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The ironic thing is that here in MA, it was a Republican governor who got the system implemented. As liberal as this state is, I would have thought the Democrats would have been the ones to do it. But as you said, it takes commitment to make it work and that commitment was made here. IMO, it was a good model to use.

Indeed. A model that could work across the nation if all worked towards making it work. If you work hard to sabotage it, then it is bound to deliver much less than what it is capable of delivering. It will also cost more. But that is on those that sabotage, not on the policy itself.