The Commonwealth Health Care Reform Implementation Advisory Committee created by out-going Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell recently submitted its report on implementing the new health care law. The committee recommended the state strongly consider covering people making between 133-200% of FPL (Federal Poverty Level) with the optional “Basic Health Plan” program added to the bill by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), instead of forcing residents to buy more costly individual private health insurance on the new exchange. From the report (PDF):
Pennsylvania should carefully consider establishing a Basic Health Program for individuals with income up to 200% of the FPL, rather than offering coverage through the exchange.
[...]
HealthChoices Medicaid managed care plans, CHIP insurers, and current adultBasic insurers might be interested in contracting for the new population using the same provider networks and similar contract terms. If a managed care approach is desired, Pennsylvania would need to expand managed care to all regions of the state. This would enhance continuity of care for a group of beneficiaries who experience frequent income fluctuations.
The Urban Institute estimates that for most states, the economies of purchasing coverage for this large new group with the basic health plan approach could have important benefits to consumers. First, this approach could achieve lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers – economies of scale achieved could make it possible to offer the essential benefits package with lower premiums and cost-sharing to participants. In addition, states may be able to negotiate extra services to improve health care quality outcomes, such as care coordination and care management for enrollees with chronic conditions and incentives for use of preventive services. Furthermore, this approach could enhance the continuity of care for a group of consumers that is prone to frequent income fluctuations. Other states that have purchased services for Medicaid expansion groups have achieved lower costs and enhanced quality through this approach.
Like the SustiNet Board in Connecticut, the Commonwealth Advisory Committee suggests against forcing this population to use the new exchanges for basically the same reason–the private insurance exchanges will likely result in worse coverage at a greater cost to both the customers and the government.
Compared to direct public insurance, like Medicare, or even a program where the government collectively negotiates with private insurance companies on behalf of a population, like the advisory board is suggesting with the “Basic Health Plan,” the new private exchanges are clearly a very bad deal. Except for the private insurance companies, that is.



14 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
With the caveat that much of the data comes from Lewin group, it seems like BHP is going to be a better deal for most states. For patients it may or may not be a better deal based on the quality of the available HMOs.
Well at the worst it will like be the same HMO’s selling the absolute cheapest silver plans on the exchanges.
Except if people don’t like it, too bad.
Don’t get me wrong. If you’re on Medicaid and live in a state that has Kaiser Medicaid HMO (which will presumably become the BHP in that state), you should absolutely take it. The value to the patient is head and shoulders above what you’ll get with FFS Medicaid. I can’t vouch for other plans however.
Typo:
…should read
~~~Repaired, thank you.~~~
Jon:
The big question is what Corbett and the Pukes will do now since they control both Houses of the legislature. I guarantee it will be a clusterfuck.
A common feature of these “not-the-Exchange” alternatives is that they seek to aggregate market power on the buyer side, so that the entity that represents the aggregated group can achieve lower prices against providers and/or insurers. So there’s a consistent recognition that even though a potentially large number of people might be using the exchange markets, that alone does not give the individuals any market/pricing power — they only get it when someone acts for all of them as a collective — a point that Ezra Klein keeps missing.
Some entity has to gather that power into a collective, single-buyer mechanism, and the ability to exercise that pricing power becomes the basis for projections of lower costs. Simple logic, but most of the proponents of the idea that “competition in the Exchanges will help” miss it.
As long as all of this stuff continues to assume the necessity and inevitability of the for-profit actuarial risk-based paradigm as the economic priority, nothing substantive will change.
Karen bin al Ignagni et al of AHIP-istan rule.
‘Crow if you think Ezra is missing it I got swamp land in New Mexico to sell ya.
Klein is in it to his flooded gills for the elite, always was.
Proof of his pudding was immediate when he went to the big show]]
You do us NO favor citing Ezra for much of anything . . .
If ya don’t mind my sayin . . .
I usually walk with yer talk, this one, stuck out to me, hope ya don’t mind me pointin that out.
Jon, the new public exchanges have proven to be losers in pricing and coverage.
I think you and other FDL authors have documented this?
But I LOVE hearing about any efforts that will circumvent the AHCA.
Cuz it sucks as proven by many an FDL author.
*G*
Including you, I believe . . .
;-)
I don’t mind, but you missed my point. Ezra has made this point on Countdown and posted on it a few days ago — I hear it often by others. You may not like him, but lots of people read him and assume he knows what he’s talking about, which means it can be helpful to provide a different view and explanation. He knows a lot about health issues, so dismissing him out of hand is unwarranted; but I’m only noting that on this particular point, I think he’s incorrect.
As for New Mexico, don’t bother; there are no swamps there. Most of the state is high desert, between 4000 to 7000+ feet elevation. Grew up there.
Unfortunately, I heard this morning that Washington state my ditch its own Basic Health Plan, which was the model for the option in the national law, due to budget cutbacks.
Jon,
I wonder if you can summarize the benefits and limitations of a BHP. If, as I assume they do, BHPs have annual or lifetime benefit caps or high co-pays/deductibles, then wouldn’t one of the key Democratic promises about ACA be undermined the first time someone insured contracts cancer or another serious illness? I.E., insuring people is supposed to end medical bankruptcy.
Jon – I followed the link and reviewed the report. I have to say that I think you overstate the case. From a 71 page report which basically outlines the establishment of exchanges with concrete recommendations in Penn., you refer to about 4 paragraphs buried in the report which merely make a recommendation that a BHP be investigated.
I know we’re all looking for a silver lining in the disaster we call federal healthcare reform, but this does not appear to be it.