Peggy Salvatore hosts this week's terrific compendium of health care wonkery, from political prognostications to Big Tobacco.
Not to be missed.
Not to be missed.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Blast from the Past: Penn Treaty in the News
Co-Blogger Bob just sent me this:
"Penn Treaty and its affiliates are so broke that their unpaid obligations for Pennsylvania are expected to top $500 million, "close to or at the 2 percent cap" for annual surcharges on Pennsylvania health-insurance policy premiums"
So says Sean McKenna, spokesctitter for the national life and health guaranty group [ed: basically FDIC for insurance]. And what does this mean?
Well:
"[Pennsylvania] braces for largest health insurance failure in U.S. history"
Sounds ominous, no?
We first wrote of PT's woes almost exactly 7 years ago, when this whole mess began to unravel for them. This news, though, is much bigger: some $4 billion in the hole, perhaps things would have "passed quietly to reinsurance - a sort of insurer underworld of risk-swapping - if Penn Treaty had been liquidated when it was first taken over."
Oh well, hindsight's always 20/20, right?
"Penn Treaty and its affiliates are so broke that their unpaid obligations for Pennsylvania are expected to top $500 million, "close to or at the 2 percent cap" for annual surcharges on Pennsylvania health-insurance policy premiums"
So says Sean McKenna, spokesctitter for the national life and health guaranty group [ed: basically FDIC for insurance]. And what does this mean?
Well:
"[Pennsylvania] braces for largest health insurance failure in U.S. history"
Sounds ominous, no?
We first wrote of PT's woes almost exactly 7 years ago, when this whole mess began to unravel for them. This news, though, is much bigger: some $4 billion in the hole, perhaps things would have "passed quietly to reinsurance - a sort of insurer underworld of risk-swapping - if Penn Treaty had been liquidated when it was first taken over."
Oh well, hindsight's always 20/20, right?
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Spectacular O'Care Fail
Along with halting the ocean's rise, we were promised that everyone would have health insurance. Hey, they even made it illegal not to have it. And of course this has been a rousing success, and there are no longer any uninsured folks roaming the streets.
Wait, what?
"Why 27 Million Are Still Uninsured Under Obamacare"
I would of course counter: what does it matter? That is, the "why" is irrelevant, only the fact that, 6+ years in, over half of that baseline number (the thoroughly debunked 47 million) still have no health insurance.
But hey, #Winning.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
Wait, what?
"Why 27 Million Are Still Uninsured Under Obamacare"
I would of course counter: what does it matter? That is, the "why" is irrelevant, only the fact that, 6+ years in, over half of that baseline number (the thoroughly debunked 47 million) still have no health insurance.
But hey, #Winning.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Health Sharing Ministries: Information Bleg
I recently wrote about a product, newly available to me, that relies "on the kindness of strangers" to help pay medical bills. Today, I learned about another new (to me) product that also relies (but only in part) on this Health Care Sharing Ministry concept.
One of the sticking points is that all of them do require a "statement of faith;" I'm not sure how well that might go over, but that's not really my biggest objection.
Here's the thing: I get that there's a certain amount of risk one takes going this route, but I also look and see these horrendous premiums and out-of-pocket expenses before ObamaPlans actually pay anything. And men especially draw the short stick: we get to pay for maternity and female birth control and the like, but can never benefit from this coverage.
So we pay out thousands, often tens of thousands of dollars with no real discernible benefit (other than - maybe - avoiding the ObamaTax).
So the sharing ministry's shortcomings have begun to look less and less onerous to me.
What I'd really like, and here's my bleg, is to know what experience my readers have had with them, either as customers or agents. Please feel free to leave a comment, or send me an email. And of course your privacy will be respected if that's a concern.
Thanks!
One of the sticking points is that all of them do require a "statement of faith;" I'm not sure how well that might go over, but that's not really my biggest objection.
Here's the thing: I get that there's a certain amount of risk one takes going this route, but I also look and see these horrendous premiums and out-of-pocket expenses before ObamaPlans actually pay anything. And men especially draw the short stick: we get to pay for maternity and female birth control and the like, but can never benefit from this coverage.
So we pay out thousands, often tens of thousands of dollars with no real discernible benefit (other than - maybe - avoiding the ObamaTax).
So the sharing ministry's shortcomings have begun to look less and less onerous to me.
What I'd really like, and here's my bleg, is to know what experience my readers have had with them, either as customers or agents. Please feel free to leave a comment, or send me an email. And of course your privacy will be respected if that's a concern.
Thanks!
From the "Not Ready for Prime Time" files
Today, class, we learn that the ObamaStration continues its long streak of making ... um ... stuff ... up:
"[M]any consumers will have a new option for the law’s fourth open-enrollment period: standardized health plans that cover basic services without a deductible."
Seems that the folks in DC have (finally!) noticed that ObamaPlans cost a lot, but also offer very little value. These new plans purport to change all this, although if they'd actually bothered to look, they'd notice that every other such plan already covers a host of freebies.
Where these plans differ seems to be in how they handle co-pays; that is, many current offerings require one to satisfy the annual deductible before co-pays (for doc visits, for example) kick in. These essentially waive the deductible and go straight to the co-pays.
Something about lipstick and pigs.
The good news is that they've really thought this through, well in advance of the actual Open Enrollment Period.
Right?
Oh:
"[T]he new plans could still be costly ... officials did not say how many such plans will be available, in which states they will be offered or how much they will cost."
Hunh.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
"[M]any consumers will have a new option for the law’s fourth open-enrollment period: standardized health plans that cover basic services without a deductible."
Seems that the folks in DC have (finally!) noticed that ObamaPlans cost a lot, but also offer very little value. These new plans purport to change all this, although if they'd actually bothered to look, they'd notice that every other such plan already covers a host of freebies.
Where these plans differ seems to be in how they handle co-pays; that is, many current offerings require one to satisfy the annual deductible before co-pays (for doc visits, for example) kick in. These essentially waive the deductible and go straight to the co-pays.
Something about lipstick and pigs.
The good news is that they've really thought this through, well in advance of the actual Open Enrollment Period.
Right?
Oh:
"[T]he new plans could still be costly ... officials did not say how many such plans will be available, in which states they will be offered or how much they will cost."
Hunh.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
Monday, October 17, 2016
Off the Menu
Regular readers may recall that North Carolina's Blue Cross franchise recently announced that it wouldn't pay commissions on most new plans. No big deal, right? After all, there are plenty of fish in the sea, and carriers in the market.
Not so fast there, grasshoppa:
"[A]lmost all of the state, from the Blue Ridge to the Outer Banks, will have just one insurer selling ACA policies when the exchanges open again for business in November"
Care to guess which carrier that might be?
I'll wait...
If you guessed Blue Cross, give yourself a (Cuban?) cigar; the carrier "agonized over whether to leave, too. Instead, it is raising its rates by nearly 25 percent."
Nice consolation prize.
But Tar Heel State citizens share a common fate with otherACA victims Americans:
"For the coming year, Oklahoma and Alaska will join Wyoming in having just one insurer selling ACA plans."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but:
Not so fast there, grasshoppa:
"[A]lmost all of the state, from the Blue Ridge to the Outer Banks, will have just one insurer selling ACA policies when the exchanges open again for business in November"
Care to guess which carrier that might be?
I'll wait...
If you guessed Blue Cross, give yourself a (Cuban?) cigar; the carrier "agonized over whether to leave, too. Instead, it is raising its rates by nearly 25 percent."
Nice consolation prize.
But Tar Heel State citizens share a common fate with other
"For the coming year, Oklahoma and Alaska will join Wyoming in having just one insurer selling ACA plans."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but:
Is Health Insurance Rationing on the Table?
■ Data Point 1: Health insurance ≠ health care
■ Data Point 2: We already know that health care is being rationed
Question: Is health insurance rationing "the next big thing?"
Reason I ask is this tidbit from The North Star State's Pioneer Press:
"Insurance companies on the individual market will increase their premiums between 50 percent and 67 percent ... and almost all the plans will put caps on the number of total customers they accept." [emphasis added]
About the massive premium hikes we already knew, but that highlighted section is bone-chilling. With one very unusual exception, I have never heard of a carrier putting a limit on how many plans it would sell. Think about it: have you ever heard a car dealer say "hey, we've already sold too many cars this month, let's take a break?"
On the other hand, the government isn't telling car dealers to lose money every month, either.
Exit question: How long until it's in your state?
[Hat Tip: HotAir]
■ Data Point 2: We already know that health care is being rationed
Question: Is health insurance rationing "the next big thing?"
Reason I ask is this tidbit from The North Star State's Pioneer Press:
"Insurance companies on the individual market will increase their premiums between 50 percent and 67 percent ... and almost all the plans will put caps on the number of total customers they accept." [emphasis added]
About the massive premium hikes we already knew, but that highlighted section is bone-chilling. With one very unusual exception, I have never heard of a carrier putting a limit on how many plans it would sell. Think about it: have you ever heard a car dealer say "hey, we've already sold too many cars this month, let's take a break?"
On the other hand, the government isn't telling car dealers to lose money every month, either.
Exit question: How long until it's in your state?
[Hat Tip: HotAir]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)