While former President Donald Trump has threatened to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if he wins reelection, the landmark healthcare law would be increasingly difficult to dismantle. In this CNN article, McDermott+Consulting’s Rodney Whitlock says the country is “as close as we’ve been to meeting the aspirational goals of 2010 for the ACA.”
The Biden administration recently announced that 28 healthcare payors and providers intend to implement and adhere to voluntary commitments for the safe, secure and trustworthy development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. The signatory companies aligned around the FAVES principle—namely, that AI should lead to healthcare outcomes that are fair, appropriate, valid, effective and safe.
On November 6, 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule for the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs. Among other proposals, CMS proposed significant changes to longstanding rules on permissible payment structures for agents and brokers. Specifically, CMS proposes to prohibit “overrides” or administrative fees paid to agents and brokers outside of the fair market value enrollment compensation limits established by CMS. This could have a significant impact on MA and Part D plan arrangements with agents and brokers.
How can the independent sector and choice make a dent in reversing the increasingly high number of United Kingdom healthcare patients waiting for treatment? In this LaingBuisson News article, Sharon Lamb examines the latest waiting time data and offers perspective on potential solutions.
The Protect Illinoisans from Unfair Medical Debt bill will require Illinois hospitals to take a much more active role in limiting consumers’ medical debt. The bill puts into place four primary requirements designed to reduce the medical debt burden of individuals receiving care. These requirements will apply to services provided on or after June 29, 2024.
After a brief hiatus to discuss the pleading standards adopted by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in E.W. v. Health Net Life Insurance Company, we return to our examination of the comments submitted in response to the proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury (the Departments) issued the proposed regulations in 2023. Our previous MHPAEA content is available here.
In this post, we examine the impact of the proposed regulations on small and medium-sized self-funded plans through the lens of a National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals (NABIP) comment letter.
The MHPAEA governs the conduct of group health plans and health insurance issuers. This structure works fine in the case of fully insured group health plans, since compliance by the issuer or carrier generally results in compliance by the plan. The former acts on the latter’s behalf. The calculus is different, however, in the case of self-funded plans that typically rely on third-party administrators for their MHPAEA compliance. Often, the third-party administrator is also a licensed carrier that is providing services on an “administrative services only” basis. Here, the group health plan alone bears the responsibility for MHPAEA compliance even though, as a practical matter, the plan will rely heavily, if not entirely, on its administrative services only provider to comply.
One of the attractions of self-funding is that the plan has the ability (in theory) to customize plan design features and strategies, including mental health benefits. In practice, only large employers have the bargaining leverage to modify their group health plan’s design features, however. Other employers are essentially beholden to their service provider(s) for their mental health benefits and other plan designs. To date, that compliance has been less than robust. See, e.g., a comment letter submitted by the state attorneys general of New York, California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington addressing their efforts to enforce their mental health and substance use parity laws against carriers. In this sense, then, it can be said that MHPAEA compliance does not “scale.” As a plan’s leverage over its service providers decreases, so does its design flexibility and options.
There is another, perhaps more basic, sense in which the MHPAEA rules do not scale. The cost of compliance can be substantial. That cost may be manageable when spread over hundreds of thousands of covered lives but not so much when spread over hundreds of lives. The net effect of this disparity is that small plans will likely be forced to adopt far simpler, prepackaged and potentially less effective nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) design strategies.
The NABIP’s comment letter addressed the following issues, principally from the perspective of self-funded plans:
Numerous states—including Alaska, Florida, Texas, Utah and Washington—have been busy finalizing and proposing rulemaking and legislation impacting telehealth-related care. Washington’s Department of Health, for example, published a proposed rule focused on implementing the multistate nurse licensure compact.
What else have these states been up to over the last month?
The price of prescription drugs has brought scrutiny to the entire drug supply chain. Congress and other policymakers continue to seek opportunities to lower costs for patients and the federal government. Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are a key stakeholder in the drug supply chain, functioning as intermediaries between insurance providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Congress and other stakeholders are raising questions about PBMs’ operations and their impact on drug prices and out-of-pocket costs for patients. In the 118th Congress, six key committees have advanced legislation that would increase PBM transparency and reporting obligations and modify other business practices. In the House, three committees combined to introduce H.R. 5378, the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act, which passed the House December 11, 2023. Read on as we review and compare policies in the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act and the PBM bills considered individually by the relevant House and Senate committees.
In recent years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has expanded payment for remote monitoring services in an effort to pay for non-face-to-face services that improve care coordination for Medicare beneficiaries. On November 2, 2023, CMS released the calendar year 2024 final rule for services reimbursed under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. In the final rule, CMS clarified certain guidance for remote monitoring services, finalized separate reimbursement for remote monitoring provided by rural health centers and federally qualified health centers, and discussed a recent request for information for digital therapies.
The enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 led to a sharp increase in employers self-funding their group health insurance plans, with the market tripling in size in the decade that followed. While larger employers can self-fund their group medical coverage in a relatively efficient manner, it does not work well for smaller employers. As year-over-year spending on healthcare in the United States outpaces growth in real gross domestic product by wide margins, employers of all sizes continue to seek to make group health insurance coverage available to their employees at a reasonable cost. Group captive-funded medical stop-loss insurance offers a way for smaller employers to obtain the full benefit of self-funding. This Special Report explains what group medical stop-loss captives are and how they are structured and regulated.
Subscribe
