Anthem has a lot of interconnections with lots of insurers. When they suffered the security breach, we were notified even tho officially we are covered by a different BCBS, not Anthem. It’s frustrating and wrong that these giant monopolies wield their power with no social or other conscience.
It’s pretty obvious they are merely trying to curry favor so they’ll get approval to buy Cigna.
Thumper, I love that idea of requiring them to sell on the individual market if they sell on the group market.
The Humana-Aetna merger was blocked. But that was under the past administration. Wonder if the Anthem/BCBS- Cigna one will be blocked, given that so many of the federal judges were just unceremoniously given the boot.
Even if they were required to offer a couple of options for a single, a couple of options for a family…it would KEEP insurerers in the market.
I’m just disgusted that this issue hasn’t been addressed…because to me, that is a KEY shortcoming that ACA did not anticipate…that everyone or almost everyone would pull out.
I know we’ve talked about genetic testing before, but holy cow I didn’t realize the new law was so bad! If a company offers a wellness program, they are allowed to ask the participants to share the results of genetic testing with them. If not, the participants can be penalized!
The whole idea of a wellness program is to keep people healthy and lower their overall healthcare bill. Giving incentives for good behavior and improvement as part of the program is only logical. Requiring genetic testing and penalizing participants for not sharing the results is completely insane! What is the motive here? If seems to me like the motive is to push people out if they “fail” the genetic test. Get rid of their healthcare discount, then get rid of their healthcare altogether, and then fire them.
Anyone see that Gattaca movie a few years ago?
[quote]
Congress passed GINA [genetic information nondiscrimination act] to prohibit discrimination by health insurers and employers based on the information that people carry in their genes. There is an exception that allows for employees to provide that information as part of voluntary wellness programs. But the law states that employee participation must be entirely voluntary, with no incentives for providing the data or penalties for not providing it.
But the House legislation would allow employers to impose penalties of up to 30 percent of the total cost of the employee’s health insurance on those who choose to keep such information private.]/quote]
The simplest overview from what I have read is that there is an individual mandate, basic medical insurance policies must be guaranteed issue (i.e. no medical underwriting against pre-existing conditions), basic medical insurance is purchased individually (i.e. not given by employers), insurance companies have to be non-profit on the required basic medical insurance, and the government subsidizes basic medical insurance premiums in excess of 8% of the individual’s income.
It is a highly regulated market of private insurance, with a safety net of subsidies for lower income people.
http://www.swisshealth.ch/en/ueber-die-schweiz/gesundheitswesen.php
Required genetic testing? You know…genetic testing isn’t FREE.
From an individual perspective, that may be correct. But, on a societal view, preventive care costs more than it saves. Yes, that is “counterintuitive.”
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-prevention.pdf
Not really. (see above) Wellness programs is one of those ‘feel-good’ benefits that employers offer.
Would a better analogy be changing oil in your car?
thumper, the ACA originally included risk corridors which encouraged insurers to come into the market and stay there despite losing money until the market stabilized. When certain people saw that lots of folks were enrolling, they decided to undermine ACA by removing the risk corridors. That predictably led to many insurers leaving, resulting in less competition and higher prices, which was the desired result. (Despite all of that, ACA had a record signup for 2017.)
Sounds like a joke given POTUS’s orange glow but it’s not:
Eliminates tax on tanning salons
The American Health Care Act eliminates many of the taxes that were implemented in the Affordable Care Act. Among them is a tax on tanning salons. The argument is that the federal government should not be making the decision of whether or not adults are using tanning salons, and that this unfairly penalizes an industry.
However, indoor tanning increases the risk of melanoma. Using an indoor tanning facility only once increases the risk of melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, by 59 precent, and the risk of squamous and basal cell skin cancers by 67 percent and 29 percent respectively. In fact, a recent study showed that indoor tanning facilities increase health care costs by $343 million annually in the United States, due to the increased rates of skin cancer. Maintaining this tax not only raises revenue to pay for badly needed programs, it can discourage a practice that leads to greatly increased skin cancer rates.
http://preventcancer.org/blog/advocacy-blog/the-american-health-care-act/
I hope we’e all complaining about all this to the right folks and getting our friends to, also.
Did anyone link to this yet? http://www.businessinsider.com/what-doctors-think-of-house-gop-obamacare-replacement-plan-2017-3/#american-medical-association-we-cannot-support-the-ahca-as-drafted-1
Thanks for the link, LF.
Regarding taxing tanning salons: I agree that unhealthful products or activities that increase disease should be taxed and that tax used to pay for healthcare. But how far down that road do people want to go: Alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, transfats, …
Who gains and loses (based on age, income, and location) from RyanCare/TrumpCare/AHCA versus ObamaCare/ACA:
http://kff.org/interactive/tax-credits-under-the-affordable-care-act-vs-replacement-proposal-interactive-map/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/08/upshot/who-wins-and-who-loses-under-republicans-health-care-plan.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/upshot/why-trump-supporters-have-the-most-to-lose-with-the-gop-repeal-bill.html
Kid with individual plan called today…thinking…pink eye. The urgent care charged $90 the last visit…so that wasn’t an option if avpidable. Kid went to the CVS Minute Clinic…$35 including the RX because the Minute Clinic takes the insurance.
Yes, this was treatable by a nurse practitioner…assuming there isn’t any additional issue.
But is this where we are heading? That to afford primary care, one goes to the Minute Clinic?
Are the tax credits to be available to all citizens who qualify by income, or just to those in the individual market?
What about the 50-year-old employee of a small business, whose premium contribution will greatly increase? (Small business premiums aren’t much better than those in the individual market). Does that guy get the tax credit too?
Primary care is going the way of the NP anyway. We need to get used to it. With their debt newly minted doctors can’t afford to be PCPs.
I think for some stuff, like pink eye, it makes sense.
Oh please, ucb. KFF is a well-regarded nonpartisan organization chock full of experts and facts, with a long history of being right about healthcare issues. They’re no more trustworthy than the CBO is. Pay no attention.
/sarcasm
Thumper, yep. Well, for people who have the $35. For those who don’t – to paraphrase Seinfeld – no care for you!