Administration Resurfaces Idea Of Interstate Insurance Sales–But There’s Been Little Appetite For The Policy In The Past
A provision in the health law already allows such sales through state agreements, and, in fact, six states have passed laws to set up interstate sales. But no policies currently are being sold. That's because the complexities of trying to regulate interstate sales deter most insurance providers from even trying. And any new insurers entering a state also face daunting competition from companies that are already well-established. On the consumer side, experts say it would do little to lower premiums.
The Wall Street Journal:
Trump Administration Looks To Jump Start Interstate Health-Insurance Sales
The Trump administration is weighing new ways to spur the sale of health insurance across state lines, a long-held goal of President Trump and congressional Republicans that has so far failed to gain much traction. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Wednesday asked for comment on eliminating regulatory and other barriers that may be discouraging interstate sales, a request that often means guidance or new regulation will follow. “Americans are in desperate need of more affordable health insurance options,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in a statement. She that eliminating barriers to selling insurance coverage across state lines “could help provide access to a more competitive and affordable health insurance market.” (Armour, 3/6)
Modern Healthcare:
CMS Wants Advice On Facilitating Insurance Sales Across State Lines
Trump often touted the idea of selling insurance across state lines as his main ACA fix while on the campaign trail. But health policy experts argue that allowing insurers to do so would lead them to set up shop in states with the fewest regulations and offer inexpensive plans with little coverage to healthy people, while less healthy people face higher premiums. Experts say it would do little to lower health insurance premiums. According to the American Academy of Actuaries, savings would be limited because premiums are driven by the local cost of care, regardless of where the care is purchased. (Livingston, 3/6)
In other news on the health law —
Modern Healthcare:
Reinsurance Faces Partisan Hurdles In Key House Hearing
A proposal to fund a $10 billion-per-year reinsurance pool for state Obamacare markets hit partisan gridlock in a U.S. House of Representatives hearing Wednesday. Representatives in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's health panel clashed over adding anti-abortion language to the reinsurance bill and disagreed over the proposal's scope. It's a significant request from the insurance industry this year, and now faces a tough road ahead. (Luthi, 3/6)
CQ:
Hearing Shows The Uphill Climb For Bipartisan Health Law Deal
A House hearing Wednesday underscored how a fight over abortion restrictions that blocked a deal last year to stabilize the state and federal insurance exchanges would likely stymie a bipartisan deal this year. That rift resurfaced as top Democrats are highlighting their hope of stabilizing the 2010 health care law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152), a goal that many see as their mandate after the 2018 election. (McIntire, 3/6)
The New York Times:
Senate Confirms Trump Nominee Who As Justice Official Fought The Affordable Care Act
The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Chad A. Readler of Ohio as President Trump’s 33rd federal appeals court judge despite bipartisan criticism that as a Justice Department official in the Trump administration he had shirked his official responsibility to defend the Affordable Care Act when it was challenged in court. Mr. Readler’s nomination is just the latest to divide the Senate as Republicans renew their drive to fill federal district and circuit court vacancies while gearing up to force through a Senate rules change to accelerate the confirmation process for the remainder of Mr. Trump’s tenure. (Hulse, 3/6)
