RSS Feed: TS-Si News Service. RSS Feed: TS-Si Research Service. TS-Si Reader Comments. Delicious: TS-Si News Service. Digg: TS-Si News Service.
Pinterest.
StumbleUpon. Facebook: TS-Si News Service.
GooglePlus: TS-Si News Service.
Twitter: Follow TS-Si News Service.

TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.
TS-Si supports open access to publicly funded research.

Leave a comment.
Nearly All States Have Taken Action on Affordable Care Act's Patients' Bill of Rights Print E-mail
Nation - Finance
The Commonwealth Fund   
Sunday, 25 March 2012 02:00
Health CareNew York, NY, USA. As the second anniversary of the Affordable Care Act approaches, a new Commonwealth Fund report finds that 49 states and the District of Columbia have already taken action supporting the law's implementation, such as passing legislation, issuing regulations or other guidance, or actively reviewing insurer filings.

Arizona is only state that has not passed legislation or taken other action to implement early reforms.


Early insurance market reforms in the law include new rules for insurers such as bans on lifetime limits on benefits and dependent coverage for young adults up to age 26. The report, Implementing the Affordable Care Act: State Action on Early Market Reforms, by Katie Keith, Kevin W. Lucia, and Sabrina Corlette of the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute (Center on Health Insurance Reforms), is the first to assess state action on 10 early reforms, including those known collectively as the Patients' Bill of Rights, that went into effect in September 2010.

Looking Ahead: 2014

States have a much longer lead time going into implementation for the 2014 reforms.

But the authors caution that states may need to be more aggressive in their approaches with these reforms given that many are entirely new and do not exist in state law.

"Unlike the early market reforms, many of the 2014 reforms — such as a ban on denying insurance coverage based on preexisting conditions, and new rating requirements — do not exist in state law. State standards may also be inconsistent with these reforms more often than with the early market reforms."

"Addressing these gaps will likely require states to make legislative or regulatory changes," the authors say.

Thus, to implement the 2014 reforms, states will likely have to go above and beyond the approach of reviewing insurer filings for compliance with the early reforms that some have taken.

This is, in part, because states that only review insurer filings may be limited in their ability to hold insurers accountable to the new rules.

"It is encouraging that state policymakers are taking advantage of early reforms in the Affordable Care Act to improve health care coverage and access to needed health care, and provide protections for residents that are especially needed during these challenging economic times," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis.
The researchers found that between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2012, 23 states and the District of Columbia had taken new legislative or regulatory action on at least one of these reforms, and an additional 26 states had taken other action to promote compliance with the reforms, such as issuing bulletins to insurers. The reforms in the study include:
  • expanding dependent coverage for young adults up to age 26,

  • prohibiting lifetime limits on health benefits,

  • phasing out annual dollar limits on health benefits,

  • prohibiting preexisting condition exclusions for children under age 19,

  • prohibiting rescissions (cancelling insurance, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation),

  • covering preventive services without cost-sharing,

  • expanding coverage of emergency services,

  • allowing choice of primary care provider,

  • allowing choice of pediatrician, and

  • allowing access to obstetricians and gynecologists without a referral.

"In just a year and a half since these early reforms took effect, nearly all states have moved ahead on the new coverage options and consumer protections now available to their residents under the Affordable Care Act," said Sara Collins, Vice President for Affordable Health Insurance at The Commonwealth Fund. "With these actions, states across the country are taking steps to make sure that insurance carriers subject to the reform law provide American families with the new benefits guaranteed under the law."

The report finds that states took the following actions:
  • Twelve states — Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia — passed new legislation or issued new regulations that addressed all 10 of the reforms.

  • The District of Columbia and 11 states — California, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin — passed a new law or issued a new regulation on at least one early market reform.

  • Fifteen states — Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas — issued new subregulatory guidance, such as a bulletin to advise insurers of the reforms.

  • Eleven states — Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming — reported that regulators were actively reviewing insurer filings for compliance with the reforms even though the state had not otherwise passed a new law or issued new regulations or other guidance.

  • Only Arizona had taken no action.

The authors identified a variety of reasons why states may have chosen to address only some of the early market reforms in new legislation or regulations. Some states already had existing state laws that they viewed as consistent with the Affordable Care Act; some took action only on reforms where their existing state laws were in direct conflict with the federal law.

According to the authors, states had a relatively short turnaround time to implement the early market reforms. The legislation was signed into law on March 23, 2010, and implementation of the early market reforms went into effect just six months later. The mixed approaches to implementing the reforms may also have been a result of timing issues, including such factors as:
  • reforms going into effect after most state legislatures had adjourned for 2010;

  • short 2011 legislative sessions;

  • changes in the state's political environment following midterm elections; and

  • state budget crises.

  • Others may have been cautious given the pending decision on the constitutionality of the law by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"These findings show not only that the vast majority of states have taken action on the early market reforms but that states have adopted a range of pragmatic approaches to help ensure that their residents receive the full benefits of the consumer protections promised under the Affordable Care Act," said Keith.

CitationImplementing the Affordable Care Act: State Action on Early Market Reforms. Katie Keith, Kevin W. Lucia, and Sabrina Corlette. The Commonwealth Fund 2012; Pub. 1586, Vol. 6
Download PDF (Issue Brief)
Abstract

the Affordable Care Act includes numerous consumer protections that took effect on September 23, 2010. This issue brief examines new state action on a subset of these "early market reforms." The analysis finds that 49 states and the District of Columbia have passed new legislation, issued a new regulation, issued new subregulatory guidance, or are actively reviewing insurer policy forms for compliance with these protections. These findings suggest that states have required or encouraged compliance with the early market reforms, and that efforts to understand how states are responding cannot focus on legislative action alone. The findings also raise important questions regarding how states may implement the Affordable Care Act’s broader 2014 market reforms, and suggest the need for continued tracking of state action.
FYIThis report is part of a series of issue briefs from The Commonwealth Fund that examines the way the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 will benefit different populations and groups, as well as improve insurance coverage and change the delivery of care.

The Commonwealth FundThe Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation supporting independent research on health policy reform and a high performance health system. The Fund makes grants to improve health care practice and policy.

TS-Si thanks The Commonwealth Fund for its support and cooperation.

TS-Si News Service.The TS-Si News Service is a collaborative effort by TS-Si.org editors, contributors, and corresponding institutions. Sources can include the cited individuals and organizations, as well as TS-Si.org staff contributions. Articles and news reports do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. We welcome your comments. Use the form below to leave a public comment or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.


TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.


Last Updated on Saturday, 24 March 2012 19:59
 

Comments   

 
# Pamela 2012-03-25 05:31
All the requirements will result in higher costs and less coverage in the long term; The Federal Government has no business mandating that a private citizen has to purchase anything. I firmly believe that the Supreme Court will declare the entire Obamacare bill unconstitutiona l and null and void.
Without a doubt, many of the so-called "reforms" being imposed on insurance companies will result in higher costs to the company and Increased costs to the insured. At 26, a person is no longer a "dependent" and should not be entitled to treatment as such.
Personally, I think the Healthcare scheme is the worst thing to come out of Washington .
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

TS-Si often publishes material that presents challenges and insights worthy of extended discussion. We encourage lively, open debate and ask that you show respect for others with responsible comments. This can be done with emotional maturity and intelligence. Before commenting, please thoroughly read the article and other comments, then stay on topic. Address the issues without presumptions about the author(s) or other persons.

We will remove any comment that is a personal attack or off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, libelous, mysogonist, obscene, phobic, profane, racist, or otherwise inappropriate. Removal for cause may occur without prior notice and repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges. These abuses and/or any attempt to post a solicitations and/or advertising, flood, spam, or otherwise disrupt TS-Si.org operations are subject to further sanctions.

All comments are subject to our terms of use and overall site policies, available under the About menu tab.


Security code
Refresh