wingedwheel

Dec 1 2014, 07:34 AM

kbp

Dec 1 2014, 07:21 AM

To his credit, if he is due any, Gruber had said there would never be any savings.

I am sure he will change his tune when questioned by democrats in any hearings.

Quote:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/print/
...Mr. Gruber's study predicted about 90 percent of individuals without employer-sponsored or public insurance would see their premiums spike by an average of 41 percent. Once tax subsidies were factored in, about 60 percent of those in the individual market were projected to see their premiums go up 31 percent, according to his analysis.

In addition, 53 percent of those insured by companies with fewer than 50 employees, would see their premiums rise by an average of 15 percent even after subsidies, Mr. Gruber forecasted. The report warned such increases could impact small companies' decision whether to provide health insurance to their workers

Quote:

 

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/more-competition-helps-restrain-premiums-in-federal-health-marketplace/

More Competition Helps Restrain Premiums In Federal Health Marketplace

A surge in health insurer competition appears to be helping restrain premium increases in hundreds of counties next year, with prices dropping in many places where newcomers are offering the least expensive plans, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of federal premium records.
[Do not forget that the HHS provided a new regulation that allows insurers to immediately cancel (30 day notice) any policy if SCOTUS rules the subsidies can't be paid from a federal exchange.

KHN looked at premiums for the lowest-cost silver plan for a 40-year-old in 34 states where the federal government is running marketplaces for people who do not get coverage through their employers. Consumers have until Feb. 15 to enroll for coverage in 2015, the marketplace’s second year.

The number of insurers offering silver plans, the most popular type of plan in 2014, is increasing in two-thirds of counties, according to the analysis. In counties that are adding at least one insurer next year, premiums for the least expensive silver plan are rising 1 percent on average. Where the number of insurers is not changing, premiums are growing 7 percent on average.

“They are moving in where they see an overpriced area,” said Gerard Anderson, a public health professor at Johns Hopkins University.
[The select county 'good premium news' may not be so good. The "overpriced area" appears to be coming out now 1% more overpriced, using that reasoning!]

In the federal marketplaces, the average county premium for the cheapest silver plan is rising 3 percent, from $266 to $273. But it is the inverse in counties where a new carrier is offering the cheapest plan. In those counties, premiums had been high, averaging $284, but they are dropping by an average of 3 percent, bringing them in line with the national average, the analysis found.
[Go back 2 paragraphs and the "least expensive silver plan are rising 1 percent on average."]

In Clark and Harrison counties in southern Indiana, where only one insurer offered coverage this year, four more are jumping in. Monthly premiums for the cheapest silver plan are decreasing by 25 percent, with 40-year-olds paying $197 for the Ambetter plan from a Medicaid-managed care company, MHS.
[My bet is that they're getting networks matching the exact one provided in "Medicaid-managed care."]

“As a direct result of those new players being part of the market, they displaced what had been the lowest-cost silver plan,” said Brian Liechty, an Indiana insurance agent. “So it changed the dynamics.”

In parts of southwest Georgia around Albany, which has only one insurer on the marketplace and is the second most expensive place in the nation to buy coverage this year, one of three new carriers, Coventry Health Care of Georgia, is offering the lowest silver plan. The price in those five counties will decline 21 percent for all ages, down to $363 for a 40-year-old. Still, that premium remains higher than much of the rest of the country.

Joe Antos, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said carriers that avoided the rough first year were able to study what their competitors were offering before jumping in. “This was a bet that paid off,” Antos said.

Many insurers were cautious about widely offering policies in 2014 without a good sense of how much others were charging and how expensive it would be to provide medical services to new customers. UnitedHealthcare, one of the nation’s largest insurers, offered plans in only four marketplaces this year nationwide but says it is selling plans in 23 states in 2015.

United is offering the cheapest silver plans in 9 percent of the counties in the federal marketplace, more than any other company, the analysis shows. The largest 2015 premium decrease in federal marketplaces—28 percent—is occurring in three Mississippi counties where United came in and undercut the monopoly insurer.

Heather Kane, United’s vice president for exchange strategy, said many of United’s plans are HMOs with smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than what United offers through its employer plans. Kane said United structured its new plans after studying which policies from competitors were most popular.

“Consumers voted for affordability,” she said.

In Kansas, a new entrant into counties is a subsidiary of a company already offering plans. BlueCross and BlueShield of Kansas created BlueCross BlueShield Kansas Solutions, a restrictive HMO that will not pay anything for non-emergency medical services outside its service area. This subsidiary is offering the lowest cost plan in 103 Kansas counties.

“In every state it looks like more competition is coming in,” said Bobby Huffaker, CEO of American Exchange, a brokerage based in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Elsewhere, competition is not a guarantee of dropping prices. In four dozen counties where Humana is coming in to offer the lowest-priced silver plan, premiums for those plans average 11 percent higher than what is offered this year.

In Chattanooga, one of the least expensive areas this year, consumers will have to pay 16 percent more for the cheapest silver plan, offered by Community Health Alliance, even though the number of carriers doubled to four. Despite the hike, Chattanooga remains less expensive than average. Elsewhere some counties with a monopoly insurer remain cheaper than counties with two competitors.

Silver plans are popular in part because they offer consumers mid-level premiums with deductibles that are not sky high. They tend to carry annual deductibles of between $1,500 and $5,000 and require insurers to pick up an average of 70 percent of medical costs. The federal government subsidizes premiums for those earning less than four times the nation’s poverty level.
There are ZERO policies through an exchange that offers less than $2000 out-of-pocket, and to get that most require the insured to get the subsidies that reduces it that low.

Many consumers will not benefit from the lowest-priced silver plan if they opt to keep what they currently have, because premiums are growing sharply for many of this year’s cheapest plans. Liechty, the Indiana broker, noted that changing can be complicated for consumers, particularly those that want to keep their doctors and hospitals. “Most people,” he said, “don’t want to put themselves in a situation where they have to change plans every year.”

Quote:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/us/politics/suit-on-health-law-puts-focus-on-funding-powers-.html

Suit on Health Law Puts Focus on Funding Powers

In mounting the latest court challenge to the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans are focusing on a little-noticed provision of the law that offers financial assistance to low- and moderate-income people.

Under this part of the law, insurance companies must reduce co-payments, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for some people in health plans purchased through the new public insurance exchanges. The federal government reimburses insurers for the “cost-sharing reductions.”

In their lawsuit, House Republicans say the Obama administration needed, but never received, an appropriation to make these payments to insurance companies. As a result, they contend, the spending violates the Constitution, which says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”

President Obama requested the money as part of the budget he sent Congress in April 2013, but Congress did not act on the request. Seeing the issue as an urgent priority, the administration began making the payments early this year, using money from a separate account established for tax refunds and tax credits.

[...]

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, who was previously the White House budget director, said officials were using the same account for both types of assistance “to improve the efficiency in the administration of subsidy payments” under the health care law.

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

The White House established a budget account for cost-sharing subsidies, but no money has been deposited in or paid from it.

In a report last year, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it appeared that there was no appropriation for cost-sharing subsidies, in contrast to the tax credits, for which Congress has provided a “permanent appropriation.”

[...]

Quote:

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-medical-errors-20141202-story.html

Obama administration announces major decline in medical errors

Infections and other medical errors that harm patients in hospitals have declined significantly, the Obama administration said Tuesday, hailing the progress as a sign that new efforts to improve patients' safety are bearing fruit..

From 2010 to 2013, so-called hospital-acquired conditions declined 17%, according to a new report from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration officials said the declines resulted in about 50,000 fewer deaths and savings of some $12 billion.

“Today's results are welcome news for patients and their families,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell. “These data represent significant progress in improving the quality of care that patients receive while spending our healthcare dollars more wisely. HHS will work with partners across the country to continue to build on this progress.”

The improvement initiative, which the administration kicked off in 2011 with funding from the Affordable Care Act, was driven by growing concern about widespread quality problems in U.S. healthcare.

According to one study published in the journal Health Affairs, an estimated 1 in 3 hospital patients experienced an “adverse event” such as receiving the wrong medication, acquiring an infection or getting the wrong surgical procedure.

Although top-performing institutions across the country dramatically reduced errors, many healthcare experts and patient advocates said progress was too slow nationwide

Over the last several years, hospitals have worked with the federal government, patient advocates and others to reduce errors, spurred in part by new financial incentives designed to reward quality and cut down on costly hospital readmissions.

Administration officials acknowledged that they could not definitively say whether the new initiatives explained the reductions.

[...]

kbp

Dec 3 2014, 11:19 AM

...Are you listening Scotus Chief Justice Roberts & the rest of you fools in robes who decided Obama-care was constitutional?

As I understand it... what SCOTUS can consider in ruling on cases before them is basically what had been presented in the lower courts. I'm not sure how they can get any new Gruber evidence on the record there. That's a question for the legal minds here!

Mason

Dec 3 2014, 11:37 AM

kbp

Dec 3 2014, 11:19 AM

...Are you listening Scotus Chief Justice Roberts & the rest of you fools in robes who decided Obama-care was constitutional?

As I understand it... what SCOTUS can consider in ruling on cases before them is basically what had been presented in the lower courts. I'm not sure how they can get any new Gruber evidence on the record there. That's a question for the legal minds here!

..
John Roberts went out of his way to use an argument the Government wasn't even making - all to approve Obamacare.

Obama said on the record a hundred times that it wasn't a tax.

That case says they can do what they want, IMO.

.

kbp

Dec 3 2014, 11:39 AM

Mason

Dec 3 2014, 11:37 AM

kbp

Dec 3 2014, 11:19 AM

...Are you listening Scotus Chief Justice Roberts & the rest of you fools in robes who decided Obama-care was constitutional?

As I understand it... what SCOTUS can consider in ruling on cases before them is basically what had been presented in the lower courts. I'm not sure how they can get any new Gruber evidence on the record there. That's a question for the legal minds here!

..
John Roberts went out of his way to use an argument the Government wasn't even making - all to approve Obamacare.

Obama said on the record a hundred times that it wasn't a tax.

That case says they can do what they want, IMO.

.

The text of the law was on the record for Roberts to address in ruling the penalty was a tax.