You are here

Backlash Greets Obama Administration’s Proposed Insurance Reforms

Every corner of the industry submitted comments on the proposed rule

Many stakeholders have serious concerns with the Obama administration’s proposed insurance reforms and do not believe they will stabilize the market.

According to Modern Healthcare, large health insurers, in particular, don't believe that the marketplaces and health plan designs will be more stable. Insurance companies and business groups slammed the proposals from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to regulate provider networks and standardize plan options, saying it would choke their ability to keep health care premiums low.

“We remain deeply concerned that this proposed rule will not stabilize the individual market,” Steven Kelmar, Aetna's executive vice president for corporate affairs, wrote in a letter to the CMS. “Unless some fundamental flaws are corrected, we believe there is a grave risk that the federal exchange will not operate as a viable, competitive market in 2017.”

One of the more significant and controversial provisions in the proposed rule involves the adequacy of provider networks. The CMS said all Affordable Care Act (ACA)-compliant health plans sold on the federal exchange in 2017 would have to abide by new quantitative network standards. Specifically, all plan networks would have to include hospitals and doctors within certain travel times or distances from members. There would also be minimum provider-to-member ratios for some medical specialties. The CMS wanted to make sure consumers had access to enough health care providers as more insurers moved to narrow-network products.

The proposal was a big departure from the recently approved model law from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). In that draft legislation, which state legislatures are expected to bring up next year, the NAIC advocated against a federal mandate and in favor of individual state insurance commissioners creating their own criteria.

The NAIC said this week that the federal government has vaguely deemed many exchange plan networks to be insufficient “because they do not have specialists in the middle of a lake or in a remote area,” and quantitative standards are an “unnecessary regulatory burden that is placed on the carriers.”

However, many hospital and doctor groups supported the CMS' proposal. The American Academy of Family Physicians asked the CMS to go a step further and build network standards for appointment wait times.

Insurance companies and regulators blasted the standards, saying the federal government deviated from the collaborative NAIC process, which took more than a year. They asked the CMS to ditch the network proposal.

“The NAIC model purposely did not include a time and distance standard because in states with large areas of sparsely populated land such as Nebraska, it is not realistic for a provider to be within a set number of miles from every insured,” Nebraska Insurance Director Bruce Ramge wrote in a letter. “By creating a time and distance standard, this effectively gives the advantage to providers who will demand a greater reimbursement rate if they are the only provider within a certain range since, without them, the insurer's network is automatically deemed inadequate.”

Anthony Barrueta, senior vice president of government relations at Kaiser Permanente, the Oakland, California-based integrated health system, wrote that such standards are "not meaningful as measures of enrollees' true access to care."

The NAIC stood by its model law in its comments. “States have the information and expertise to set appropriate standards and work with carriers to ensure consumers are protected,” the group wrote. “Many states already have strong standards in place. Others will consider the best way to improve their oversight based on the updated NAIC model.”

New “standardized options” also drew the ire of many industry stakeholders. In an effort to make health plan shopping easier, the CMS proposed that all health plans in each metal tier on the federal exchange have the same benefits. For example, all 2017 bronze options would have a $6,650 deductible, and all plans would have no more than one provider tier.

Several state-based exchanges already require simplified plan designs. Hospitals have been particularly big supporters of cracking down on provider tiers, which place some facilities in higher cost-sharing brackets than others.

Industry groups also criticized the government's suggestion of making all proposed premium rate increases, not just final rate increases of 10% or more, available to the public. Unveiling all proposed and final rate increases would be a big victory for those advocating for more transparency in health care, but most insurers cried foul.

Several groups and organizations blasted the CMS for the short window to comment. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register December 2, but comments were due December 21. Most comment periods last at least 30 days.

Source: Modern Healthcare, December 22, 2015.

Recent Headlines

Despite older, sicker patients, mortality rate fell by a third in 10 years
Study finds fewer than half of trials followed the law
WHO to meet tomorrow to decide on international public heath emergency declaration
Study of posted prices finds wild variations and missing data
Potential contamination could lead to supply chain disruptions
Declining lung cancer mortality helped fuel the progress
Kinase inhibitor targets tumors with a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation
Delayed surgery reduces benefits; premature surgery raises risks
Mortality nearly doubled when patients stopped using their drugs