Brad Wright hosts this week's World Series (and election) themed collection of the best health care wonkery on the 'net.
And, like the Cubs this year, a winner indeed.
And, like the Cubs this year, a winner indeed.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Heads' I win...
There's a popular meme circling the 'net that says the rate increases really won't affect most people because their subsidies will cover the spread:
"Yet most Obamacare participants won’t feel the full price hike or anything near it. Nationally, 85% of those enrolled receive a tax credit"
This is why I get so frustrated with the media, which seeks to isolate the Marketplace (Exchange) from the big picture: all ACA-compliant plans are ObamaPlans, not just those on the Exchange. That is, if it's ACA-compliant, then it's ObamaCare. By trying to split "ACA compliant" from "bought on the Exchange" these oh-so-clever "journalists" seek to put daylight between the two that doesn't actually exist.
The reality is that yes, most folks who buy on the Exchange are going to be getting subsidies (aka "a several hundred dollar health insurance gift card from taxpayers"), which is the only reason one should even consider buying there. But this completely misses the point that most folks don't buy on the Exchange or receive subsidies, and thus feel the full brunt of these fully operationalDeath Stars rate hikes.
And these same reporters also ignore the fact that even those "shielded" from rate hikes are still going to feel the MOOP pinch.
What's "the MOOP pinch," you ask?
That's the newly increased Maximum Out of Pocket limit. Care to see how this works in the real world?
Well, FoIB Jeff M has graciously forwarded his own plan rates and specs for this year and next:
"Yet most Obamacare participants won’t feel the full price hike or anything near it. Nationally, 85% of those enrolled receive a tax credit"
This is why I get so frustrated with the media, which seeks to isolate the Marketplace (Exchange) from the big picture: all ACA-compliant plans are ObamaPlans, not just those on the Exchange. That is, if it's ACA-compliant, then it's ObamaCare. By trying to split "ACA compliant" from "bought on the Exchange" these oh-so-clever "journalists" seek to put daylight between the two that doesn't actually exist.
The reality is that yes, most folks who buy on the Exchange are going to be getting subsidies (aka "a several hundred dollar health insurance gift card from taxpayers"), which is the only reason one should even consider buying there. But this completely misses the point that most folks don't buy on the Exchange or receive subsidies, and thus feel the full brunt of these fully operational
And these same reporters also ignore the fact that even those "shielded" from rate hikes are still going to feel the MOOP pinch.
What's "the MOOP pinch," you ask?
That's the newly increased Maximum Out of Pocket limit. Care to see how this works in the real world?
Well, FoIB Jeff M has graciously forwarded his own plan rates and specs for this year and next:
So not only does he have the privilege of paying almost $3,000 a year more in premium, but his out-of-pocket increased by $300.
One supposes he doesn't feel "shielded."
One supposes he doesn't feel "shielded."
[Hat Tip: HotAir]
O'Care Implosion (Anecdotal)
So got a call yesterday from a very nice lady who was looking for information on health insurance, and specifically an HSA plan. Seems she and her husband have been uninsured for several years, paid the tax penalty fine, but were thinking maybe it's time. She'd apparently been calling around, and no one was returning her calls.
I explained to her that if this had been a few short years ago, I would have been surprised, but that times have changed. Nevertheless, I was willing to see if we could help her out.
First, I completed a referral form to send to Cornerstone. She was concerned that, due to their ages, she and her husband would find premiums, even for an HSA-compliant plan, unaffordable. I think she was expecting me to pooh-pooh that, but of course I did not (could not). All I could say was that the fine folks at Cornerstone would do the best they could for her.
She had mentioned that they were self-employed, and that her husband was the minister of a small congregation. So I asked if they'd looked into a health care sharing ministry; she said they'd had a very bad experience with one such, and so I dropped that and asked if she was aware of the Direct Primary Care model.
She was intrigued.
So I offered to see if we could help connect her with a DPC provider in her area, which was fine with her. I reached out to Dr Rob, of course, but also others I know in that field. Within a few hours I had a handful of leads for her, which I of course passed along.
I've asked her to keep me apprised of what she ends up doing; she's under no obligation to do so, of course, but I'm really curious to see how this turns out. Developments here as they occur.
I explained to her that if this had been a few short years ago, I would have been surprised, but that times have changed. Nevertheless, I was willing to see if we could help her out.
First, I completed a referral form to send to Cornerstone. She was concerned that, due to their ages, she and her husband would find premiums, even for an HSA-compliant plan, unaffordable. I think she was expecting me to pooh-pooh that, but of course I did not (could not). All I could say was that the fine folks at Cornerstone would do the best they could for her.
She had mentioned that they were self-employed, and that her husband was the minister of a small congregation. So I asked if they'd looked into a health care sharing ministry; she said they'd had a very bad experience with one such, and so I dropped that and asked if she was aware of the Direct Primary Care model.
She was intrigued.
So I offered to see if we could help connect her with a DPC provider in her area, which was fine with her. I reached out to Dr Rob, of course, but also others I know in that field. Within a few hours I had a handful of leads for her, which I of course passed along.
I've asked her to keep me apprised of what she ends up doing; she's under no obligation to do so, of course, but I'm really curious to see how this turns out. Developments here as they occur.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Open Enrollment v4.0: A Preview
No, I don't really think it takes a crystal ball to predict an abysmal showing for this year's Open Enrollment. For one thing, there are a lot fewer plans available, but they're up to 116% higher, which is nice.
For another, it's likely that fewer agents will be helping folks sign up for on-Exchange (ie subsidized) plans. As FoIB Allison B reports:
"Managers of HealthCare.gov continue to put barriers in front of consumers who want help from agents or brokers with buying, and using, public exchange plan coverage"
These include providing more agent information up-front, as well as requiring consumers to "call the HealthCare.gov call center at the beginning of the open enrollment period." And good luck with that: based on previous experience, those hold times become epic.
But that's not all.
Noted ACA proponent (and yet FoIB) Charles Gaba rues that "there were about 10.5 million people still enrolled in effectuated QHPs via the ACA exchanges. As I noted at the time, this was about 300,000 fewer people than I had assumed would be enrolled at that point."
And it just gets better (for certain values of "better") from there:
"Third-quarter earnings reports from Aetna and UnitedHealth showed that their combined exchange enrollment totals fell by 113,000 to 1.6 million from the end of June through September, a decline of 6.6%."
And why is this significant? Well, because these two carriers "account for nearly one in six exchange enrollees" (that's about 16% of the total market). So if enrollment fell off so dramatically last year, imagine what a bloodbath this year has in store.
#ObamaCareWinning!
For another, it's likely that fewer agents will be helping folks sign up for on-Exchange (ie subsidized) plans. As FoIB Allison B reports:
"Managers of HealthCare.gov continue to put barriers in front of consumers who want help from agents or brokers with buying, and using, public exchange plan coverage"
These include providing more agent information up-front, as well as requiring consumers to "call the HealthCare.gov call center at the beginning of the open enrollment period." And good luck with that: based on previous experience, those hold times become epic.
But that's not all.
Noted ACA proponent (and yet FoIB) Charles Gaba rues that "there were about 10.5 million people still enrolled in effectuated QHPs via the ACA exchanges. As I noted at the time, this was about 300,000 fewer people than I had assumed would be enrolled at that point."
And it just gets better (for certain values of "better") from there:
"Third-quarter earnings reports from Aetna and UnitedHealth showed that their combined exchange enrollment totals fell by 113,000 to 1.6 million from the end of June through September, a decline of 6.6%."
And why is this significant? Well, because these two carriers "account for nearly one in six exchange enrollees" (that's about 16% of the total market). So if enrollment fell off so dramatically last year, imagine what a bloodbath this year has in store.
#ObamaCareWinning!
[Hat Tip: FoIB Rich W]
Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick
Elimination. This is what government is about when it comes to dealing with competition. The latest example comes via a new rule for Obamacare. If government speaks quietly enough you won't notice when they try and slip a fast one by you. If you do notice, they have that big stick ready to go so when competition doesn't fall in line they can smack the crap out of the competition with it.That is what HHS did today when they issued a proposed new rule on short term medical insurance plans. The rule revises the definition of a short-term plan and will limit these plans to only three months and not be renewable.
On the surface this isn't a big deal to consumers. Primarily because short-term medical plans were never actually renewable. They are medically underwritten and don't meet the criteria of being Obamacare compliant. So when the policy ends it must be medically underwritten again before being issued. And, because they aren't Obamacare compliant people who purchase these plans are also subject to the individual mandate tax.
Therein lies the government's problem. Because these plans aren't compliant and include medical underwriting they are much less expensive than the Obamacare plans one is being coerced to buy through the marketplace. In some cases they are so much cheaper that a healthy person can pay the premiums plus the tax and it's still financially better for them than buying an Obamacare plan.
This leads us to the real reason government wants these plans gone. They see the death spiral of the individual market accelerating. Costs of insurance are exploding - including those cheap high deductible Bronze plans. Logically the only way government knows how to try and reverse this course is to force the healthy into the pool. By eliminating short-term plans and forcing consumers to the marketplace they believe they will strengthen the Obamacare risk pool.
Obamacare is a crap sandwich. Right now there are other sandwiches out there. Among them are limited benefit plan sandwiches, Christian Ministry sandwiches, and short-term medical sandwiches. One by one the government will eliminate your choices of sandwiches. Pretty soon all you will have left is the crap sandwich - and once you take a bite you'll find that it will leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Monday Afternews
■ The Revenooer's have published the 2017 guidelines for deducting LTCi premiums. What, you didn't know that you could deduct some of your Long Term Care insurance premiums on your taxes?
Yup, and the "Internal Revenue Service is increasing the maximum long-term care insurance premium deduction for 2017 faster than the 2016 inflation rate."
Sweet!
At the same time, they're also increasing how much one can set (temporarily) aside in a Flexible Spending Account (for certain health and child care expenses).
■ With the World Series now officially a nail-biter, it may be interesting to note how much the life insurance industry has changed in the 100+ years since the Cubs last won one. For example:
Yup, and the "Internal Revenue Service is increasing the maximum long-term care insurance premium deduction for 2017 faster than the 2016 inflation rate."
Sweet!
At the same time, they're also increasing how much one can set (temporarily) aside in a Flexible Spending Account (for certain health and child care expenses).
■ With the World Series now officially a nail-biter, it may be interesting to note how much the life insurance industry has changed in the 100+ years since the Cubs last won one. For example:
- Group life insurance came into being in 1911
- In 1914, just over a decade since Dayton's Wright Brothers made the first powered flight (no TSA, either), Northwestern Mutual paid "its first death claim caused by an airplane accident" when some unfortunate passenger exited before the actual landing. Hundreds of feet in the air before
- One I first heard many years ago when I entered this business is that during the Depression, James C Penney (yes, that JC Penney) used his life insurance cash values to help keep his company afloat and employees paid.
Lots more at the link.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)