<p>I’d like to know where you’re getting this from, GP, because I think you’re misinformed. The ACA provided $5 billion to be spread among the 50 states for insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. This was always intended as a transitional measure until people with pre-existing conditions could buy regular insurance on the exchanges, and it was to be supplemental to the state high-risk pools, not a replacement for them. Very few people signed up because $5 billion nationally doesn’t cover very many people. </p>
<p>There was an earlier 2010 health care reform bill that gave states the option of transitioning their state high-risk pools to federally-run plans, but again the funding was very limited.</p>
<p>If someone slips in a judgment, could you try to realize not all states are managing this the same, offering the same sorts of plans- or limiting options in the same ways. You need to be on top of what your state is doing- and another state may be doing things differently. That’s all.</p>
<p>bclintock, it was not supplemental. The federal high risk pools provided comprehensive coverage. They were transitional but I think it could have been a way for offering a more permanent solution to the problem of providing coverage for people with preexisting conditions.</p>
<p>I don’t think it was on this thread, I think it was a separate report on one particular state- why the high risk pools didn’t enroll as many as they had hoped. And the suggestions were: not enough effort to get word out, in the first place, to those who would qualify- partly because that target group has to be first identified, then contacted. Also that the standards for qualifying were cumbersome and that between weeding out those it did not apply to and taking others through the lengthy approval process, the lack of sleekness got in the way. Someone else will know more than I do.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, DStark – the first thing I noticed was that the choices on the MMRIP are more limited than the exchange – basically Kaiser & Anthem – and that the rates are exorbitant. My guess is that one reason for low participation is simply that most people couldn’t afford those rates – in my area, at my age, it would be $1124/month for individual coverage, rising to over $1400 at age 60. </p>
<p>Given that health problems have a tendency to impede earning capacity, I don’t see how most people could afford those rates.</p>
<p>There were 6492 people in California in that high risk plan as of Oct 2013. </p>
<p>The cap is 7500 people. </p>
<p>Premiums look very expensive to me. GP would have a heart attack if he had to pay those premiums. But they did get rid of the caps I guess. This year. :)</p>
<p>I am assuming that bill I linked passed. I dont feel like looking it up. :)</p>
<p>California had two pools: the federally funded PCIP program and the MRMIP program. The MRMIP plan was garbage but the PCIP was very good coverage at a price very close to what people were getting in the individual market. It was a transitional program and it was cumbersome to apply. It wasn’t marketed well and the Feds ran out of money because it wasn’t cheap. All I am saying is it could have been a more permanent solution if it was better funded through some kind of tax and the eligibility criteria had been streamlined.</p>
<p>GP, the PCIP plan had to close at 100,000 people. Couldnt handle the 300,000 people it expected to sign up.</p>
<p>Do you have numbers to show that PCIP should have been expanded instead of closed to new signees?</p>
<p>I appreciate the links. There were some nice benefits. Looks very expensive.
This program was part of Obamacare. I dont think it was a rip roaring success. :)</p>
<p>No problem emilybee, get on the bandwagon. At least you asked nicely. :)</p>
<p>Yes, the PCIP program was very expensive but the only difference with this program and ACA is where the funding will come from. ACA hopes the funding will come from the higher premiums of healthy subscribers, while a high risk pool, such as PCIP, would be paid from a broad-based tax, which could be more fairly applied to the general population.</p>
<p>We could fund all of aca using taxpayer money too.
$2,000 times 15 million people equals 30 billion. </p>
<p>I am playing with numbers…taking the most expensive 1/3 of the plans after ACA sees 30 milliion signups adding to the 15 million or so that already have insurance and cutting the premiums an average of 2,000 a person.</p>
<p>Ah, I just realized what you all are talking about. I drove a discussion about the fed high risk program months ago. Supposedly, they actually could not get enough people to sign up for it and then ran out of money ($5bill) a year or so early, even with few enrollees, so they had to shut it down. Does that sound familiar to anyone here? I’m pretty sure some of you were in on that discussion. I didn’t realize where that program fit in with the scheme of things at the time.</p>