Category Archives: Politics

A Common Gal Looks at ObamaCare: Part 3 — Exchanges and What They Do

A Common Gal Looks at ObamaCareI’m reading up on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”). That includes the act itself, amendments passed shortly afterward, and the recent Supreme Court ruling. It’s a lot of pages (906, 55, and 193 respectively), but I want to understand it. I’m documenting my read-through here. I am not a lawyer or a healthcare professional, just a common college-educated person. These are my thoughts, not advice to you. Read the act yourself like the free person you are. ;o). Also note: This act refers a lot to “health care plans”; for simplicity’s sake, I sometimes just say “insurance” or “health insurance.”

To understand the part of Section 1302 I’m reading today, I had to skip around to several parts of the law to get definitions. It will make more sense if I front-load this post with those definitions first.

The Affordable Care Act defines two kinds of state agencies that must be established. Each state has to set up both kinds (or one agency that combines both functions) no later than Jan. 1, 2014.[1] They are:

  • American Health Benefit Exchanges (“Exchanges”). An Exchange is supposed to make it easier for people to buy health insurance.
  • Small Business Health Options Program (“SHOP Exchange”). A SHOP Exchange is supposed to help small businesses make it easier for their employees to enroll in health insurance.

FYI, an “Exchange” is defined as “a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.”[2] I think it’s pretty silly that they are capitalizing “Exchange,” but I’ll dutifully follow their style.

I needed to get that info straight for the parts I’m studying today: 1302(b)(4)(F), (G) and (H). Here’s what I think that section says (in plain English, not the original, which was in the most writhing, agonized tangled tentacles of English possible).

The Secretary of Health and Human Services must ensure that the existence of a standalone plan (such as dental insurance) within an Exchange doesn’t negatively affect how other plans (such as general health insurance) are treated in the Exchange. Details:

  • An Exchange may offer more than one health plan (my examples: a general health insurance plan, a vision plan, a dental plan, etc.).
  • Those plans may differ in coverage. (Duh.)
  • Just because they differ does NOT invalidate any one of them from being treated as a “qualified health plan.” (Legalese perpetrators do SO dearly love double negatives. The original was a doozy.)
  • This refers specifically to pediatric services (including dental and vision care). (Yeah, they tossed that in at the end.)

This seems to make sense; we’re all familiar with dental and vision being covered under separate plans. Just because a vision plan or a dental plan doesn’t cover, say, appendicitis, is no reason to assume it’s not a qualified health plan. Similarly, just because a general insurance plan doesn’t cover your wisdom teeth extraction is no reason to assume it’s not a qualified health plan either.

I can’t believe the lawmakers get paid to dither about this kind of commonsense, evident-to-everyone-else minutiae.

The (F) part also has a glitch. It says the plans it’s talking about are stand-alone dental benefit plans as described in Section 1311(b)(2)(B)(ii). Only … dental plans are not in that section; they are instead in Section 1311 (d) (2)(B)(ii). That’s a minor glitch, but these people are paid the big bucks to get this right, and they goofed.

The (G) part says the Secretary has to periodically review the act’s 10 categories of essential health benefits[3] and report on them to Congress and the public. The report has to tell (1) whether coverage or cost problems are keeping enrollees from accessing needed services, (2) whether the list of essential health benefits needs modification or updating (because of changes in medicine or science, not because of a political whim), and (3) how the benefits should be modified or updated in such cases. The report also should assess (4) whether adding/expanding benefits will increase costs, and (5) what’s the interaction between adding/expanding benefits and REDUCING existing benefits to meet actuarial limitations described earlier in the act.

This makes me very glad I’m not the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to write such a pain-in-the-butt report.

I’ve footnoted the even-more-boring source references to specific parts of the act at the end of this post. ;o)

Other Posts on ObamaCare:

  • Part 1: Intro
  • Part 2: Types of coverage, no discrimination
  • Part 4: Your cost limits and adjustments
  • Part 5: Deductibles and preventive care
  • Part 6: Four levels of coverage
  • Part 7: Limits on losing coverage
More in my next post on this topic!

[1] Source: Section 1311 (b)(1)(2).

[2] Source: Section 1311(d)(1).

[3] The essential health benefits are referenced a LOT in the act. But it’s important to be clear what we’re talking about. They are:

  • Ambulatory (“walk in”) patient services
  • Emergency services
  • Hospitalization
  • Maternity/newborn care
  • Mental health and substance use disorder services (including behavioral health treatment)
  • Prescription drugs
  • Rehab and habilitative services/devices
  • Lab services
  • Preventive/wellness services and chronic disease management
  • Pediatric services (including oral and vision care).

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Healthcare, Politics

A Common Gal Looks at ObamaCare: Part 2 — A Strangling Gordian Knot

A Common Gal Looks at ObamaCareThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) is about 1,000 pages long — about the size of two Stephen King novels. I’m reading the whole thing and commenting here — purely my own opinions. I am not a lawyer or a healthcare professional, just a common college-educated person who is willing to put in the time. I will be posting my notes here periodically when I find interesting tidbits, confusing sections, and comforting or alarming parts. Join me! Find the law here and the recent Supreme Court opinion upholding it here. If you see me getting it wrong, or if you have answers to my questions, please let me know!

We’ll Be Skipping Around

Yesterday, I mentioned that Section 2711 of ObamaCare made a complicated reference to another part of the law – Section 1302B. It sounds like that later section is going to list exceptions that DO allow insurers to cap people’s benefits each year or, in some cases, for their lifetimes. So I toodled on over to Section 1302 (B). It is clearly going to take a while to get to that information, because I’ve been reading for a couple of hours now and I still haven’t found it. Here’s what I HAVE puzzled out, though.

Lots & Lots of Healthcare Is Covered

First, it lists the categories of essential health benefits. (Smart to nail that down.) They are:

  • Ambulatory (“walk in”) patient services
  • Emergency services
  • Hospitalization
  • Maternity/newborn care
  • Mental health and substance use disorder services (including behavioral health treatment)
  • Prescription drugs
  • Rehab and habilitative services/devices
  • Lab services
  • Preventive/wellness services and chronic disease management
  • Pediatric services (including oral and vision care).

SO FAR – AWESOME!

Coverage also can’t be “unduly” weighted toward any of the categories. Example: No fair treating someone in the ER with 100% coverage of the initial patch-up job but then paying, say, only 1% toward prosthetics and pain medicines. STILL AWESOME. (I am calling them out on the fudge factor of that weasel word, “unduly,” though.)

Ixnay on the Discrimination

The law also lists all the ways that people CANNOT be screwed out of their benefits. (My, we certainly know our legislators, healthcare institutions and insurance companies, don’t we.) I’m still working on this list, but here’s what I think it says so far:

  • The Secretary (presumably of Health and Human Services, although they sloppily did not specify) can’t do several really important things in ways that discriminate against people because of age, disability or expected length of life. Those important things include making coverage decisions, deciding reimbursement rates, creating incentive programs, and designing benefits.
  • The Secretary has to consider the needs of DIVERSE segments of the population (diverse by gender, age, disability and other ways). That seems fair. Example: Plans can’t decide only to cover the very young and extremely healthy.
  • The Secretary has to ensure that those broad categories of health benefits can’t be denied to people IF (1) that is against the people’s wishes and IF (2) the denial is based on age, expected length of life, disability, medical dependency, or quality of life. (So people can’t be told, “Hey, you’re crippled and in pain and we don’t expect you to live a long time … we’re just not going to cover you since it’s not really worth it to us.”)

STILL AWESOME.

Then They Wove a Tangled Web

The law next defines what it means for a health plan to “provide coverage” for those broad categories of essential health benefits. The definition is stated in the most convoluted, double-negative, conjunction-intensive sentence possible. Seriously. William Faulkner himself would have said, “WTF, can you guys not speak English?” about Section 1302(b) (4) (E) (i).

I tried to dissect it; really, I did. I *think* that the part I have read so far says this:

  • ER coverage has to be provided without requiring prior authorization.
  • Hospitals (or other ER providers) can’t limit someone’s emergency coverage just because the hospital doesn’t play well with their insurance company … UNLESS the hospital would deny coverage even for someone whose insurance company DOES have a contract with the hospital. (Believe me, that’s the simplified version.)
  • If I’m reading it correctly, it seems to say next that “out of network” co-pays for ER service can’t cost more than if the services were provided in network.

Other Posts on ObamaCare:

  • Part 1: Intro
  • Part 3: Exchanges and what they do
  • Part 4: Your cost limits and adjustments
  • Part 5: Deductibles and preventive care
  • Part 6: Four levels of coverage
  • Part 7: Limits on losing coverage

Leave a Comment

Filed under Healthcare, Politics

A Common Gal Looks at ObamaCare: Part 1 — Were They Paid By the Word?

A Common Gal Looks at ObamaCareThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) is almost 1,000 pages long — about the size of two Stephen King novels. Yikes. So I’ll wager that most people are like me and haven’t read it yet. But I’m tired of posers insisting that their “ObamaScare” view of the law is correct, so I’m reading the whole thing. I am not a lawyer or a healthcare professional, just a common college-educated person who is willing to put in the time to learn more. I will be posting my notes here periodically when I find interesting tidbits, confusing sections, and comforting or alarming parts. Join me! Find the law here and the recent Supreme Court opinion upholding it here. If you see me getting it wrong, or if you have answers to my questions, please let me know!

Here’s what I have learned so far:

  • This is one helluva daunting document. The index alone is 12 pages long. *sigh*
  • None of the pages are numbered. (Seriously? That’s idiotic. But maybe that is typical for legislation?) You can see what page you’re on if you read it in Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  • We’ve all heard many times that dependents can be covered through age 26. Actually, it is “UNTIL” the child reaches age 26. So to me it sounds like they’re covered “through” age 25. See Section 2714 (a).
  • I assumed this, but it’s also spelled out that the covered is extended just to your UNMARRIED children. See Section 2714 (a).
  • It covers your dependents up to age 26, but not their children. That’s a subtlety I hadn’t picked up on previously, but it makes sense. So if your adult children are covered, your grandchildren are not. See Section 2714 (a).
  • Section 2711’s intro is pretty confusing to me. This section is about “No lifetime or annual limits.” Subsections (a), (1), and (2) refer to that. But then Subsection (b) says that can’t be construed to “prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage THAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 1302(B) OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law.” The capitalization is mine to point out the part that seems kind of slippery to me. So I looked at Section 1302 (B) – it is several pages long. Going to skip ahead and read that now so I read all the rest in context. But it’s a pain in the butt that the document is not hyperlinked to that. Does anyone know of a copy of the law that is generated in a MODERN format, not just PDF?

Other Posts on ObamaCare:

  • Part 2: Types of coverage, no discrimination
  • Part 3: Exchanges and what they do
  • Part 4: Your cost limits and adjustments
  • Part 5: Deductibles and preventive care
  • Part 6: Four levels of coverage
  • Part 7: Limits on losing coverage

2 Comments

Filed under Healthcare, Politics