Audits and investigations into the effects of ObamaCare from congressional committees, government auditors, advocacy groups, and others.
Things have gone from bad to worse for the Affordable Care Act’s health-care co-op experiment.
Maryland’s co-op, Evergreen Health, filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit in June against the federal government claiming that private insurers have gamed the system to avoid making “risk adjustment payments.” Under the ACA, insurers with healthier members must make these payments to insurers with unhealthier members. But Evergreen CEO Peter Beilenson argues that his co-op was unfairly labeled as healthier because private insurers encouraged their less healthy members to go to the doctor so their patient pools would appear less healthy. Evergreen is now expected to owe between $18 million and $22 million in risk adjustment payments.
. . .
Senior Obama administration officials took a series of decisions beginning in late 2013 that ranged from the reckless to the illegal in an effort to keep insurers participating in health insurance exchanges.
The program — known as cost-sharing reduction (CSR) — requires insurers to reduce deductibles and other out-of-pocket spending for certain low-income people who signed up for coverage through health insurance exchanges. In turn, the statute authorized the administration to seek an appropriation from Congress to reimburse insurers for the cost of providing these coverage enhancements.
. . .
A top Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services official defended the health insurance co-ops created under the Affordable Care Act Wednesday, after four more of the nonprofit insurers announced they would take steps to wind down in recent weeks.
Kevin Counihan, the CEO of HealthCare.Gov, told a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms that the co-ops have spurred innovation within the health insurance marketplace and given consumers more opportunities. But Republicans on the panel railed against the program, as about two-thirds of the co-ops have now announced steps to close down.
. . .
Lawyers well versed in federal health policy are skeptical that a handful of insurers will triumph in their lawsuits against the Obama administration over two separate but similar payment provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Six insurers, including several of the ACA-created Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, or CO-OPs, are suing the administration over money, while a number of others are 23 Comments lawsuits.
The insurers are suing over the ACA’s risk corridor and risk adjustment programs, which make up two of the “three Rs” built into the law to compensate insurers for losses stemming from market volatility in the first few years of ACA implementation.
. . .
Health insurers in New Mexico and other states are gearing up for a legal fight with the Obama administration over millions of dollars the insurers both owe and are owed under separate provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
New Mexico Health Connections, the state’s Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan, or CO-OP, confirmed to The Hill that it is working with lawyers to frame lawsuits on both ObamaCare’s risk-adjustment and risk-corridor provisions, which make up two of the so-called three Rs of the ACA’s premium stabilization program.
. . .
Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an analysis of Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange plan deductibles. Because the analysis presents data in a misleading way, it draws inaccurate conclusions about the current status of the ACA. This short post provides readers with key missing pieces.
Although it is more common to present the average than the median in statistical analysis, showing both is often done to describe the data being presented. HHS’ analysis relied exclusively on the median plan deductible ($850) and did not include the weighted average plan deductible.
. . .
The battle between congressional Republicans and the White House over the Affordable Care Act is again escalating—in court and on Capitol Hill.
The administration on Wednesday appealed a federal trial judge’s ruling that the government is improperly reimbursing insurers under a program to cover discounts for low-income consumers.
And House Republicans on Thursday began two days of hearings to hammer away at the issue. They released a report that said the administration distributed the funds even though it was aware it needed Congress’s approval.
. . .
An investigation by House Republicans argues that the Obama administration is illegally making certain payments under ObamaCare and that officials initially recognized they did not have authority to do so before reversing course.
House Republicans argue that the administration is unconstitutionally making ObamaCare’s “cost sharing reduction” payments to insurers — which help lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs for low-income ObamaCare enrollees — without a congressional appropriation.
. . .
House Republicans on Thursday released an investigative report and held the first of two hearings questioning the legality of Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction program. That program is also the subject of a House lawsuit against the administration.
At issue is whether the cost-sharing program is legally funded. House Republicans, through an investigation conducted by the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees, concluded that the health care law does not provide funding for the cost-sharing program.
. . .
Republicans and Democrats continued to talk at each other Friday about Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction program in an Energy and Commerce oversight subcommittee hearing.
The hearing was the second in two days following the release of a GOP report claiming that payments to the administration’s program were made illegally.
Republicans suggested that the way the payments have been handled sets a dangerous precedent for the future and nullifies Congress’s power of the purse. Democrats chalked the investigation up as yet another GOP attempt to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. They also said since there is already a court case on the matter, Congress doesn’t need to do its own investigation.
. . .