Insurance companies on the offensive to further weaken health care reform

[eridani]

Essential Health Benefits Coalition
http://ehbcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/EHBC-Comments.pdf

To: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
From: Neil Trautwein, National Retail Federation

Re: Request for Information on the Essential Health Benefits Bulletin

The Essential Health Benefits Coalition ("EHBC&quot appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in response to the "Essential Health Benefits Bulletin" as issued by Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) on December 16, 2011.

We urge HHS to consider an approach that balances reasonably comprehensive benefits with affordability for employers and individuals. A definition that does otherwise will make health coverage more expensive for employers and individuals to purchase and make jobs more difficult for employers to create.

Excerpt from recommendations:

Specifically, we urge the Department to reiterate that the Bulletin
reflects the statutory requirements that:

* The EHB package does not dictate cost sharing requirements.
* Use of benefit limits included within benchmark plans is not barred.
* Future state mandates will not be added to the benchmark plan.
* Use the benchmark plan only to define the 10 categories of EHBs required
by the ACA, and not any additional benefits that the benchmark may cover.

Members of the Essential Health Benefits Coalition Steering Committee:

American Osteopathic Association
America's Health Insurance Plans
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association
Express Scripts Inc.
National Association of Health Underwriters
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
National Federation of Independent Business
National Retail Federation
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association
Prime Therapeutics
Retail Industry Leaders Association
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Commentby Don McCanne of PNHP: HHS has proposed that "essential health benefits" for plans under the Affordable Care Act need meet only the minimal standard of state regulated plans in the small group market. Now a coalition of the usual suspects which push self-serving reforms is proposing to further weaken the "essential health benefits" standard.

The details of their recommendations are not nearly as important as the fact that this maneuver represents what has been wrong with the reform process all along. The vested interests have been in the front seat while the guileless patients have had to accept their work product - a mandate to purchase unaffordable under-insurance, amongst many other flawed policies.

Instead of fighting over the definition of minimal essential benefits in a highly flawed health financing program, we should be joining with the nation's patients in demanding that our elected leaders quit listening to these self-serving interests and instead enact a program that puts patients in the front seat - an improved Medicare for all.

Addendum: Members of the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) may want to advise their leadership that, as a patient-oriented organization, AOA should immediately withdraw from this dastardly coalition.

[Cleita]

1. K&R

[gopiscrap]

2. Single Payer Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eridani]

3. Most states are not doing much to implement PPACA

If you live in a state that is, please wage a visible fight against the insurance parasites on these rules. It's a good opportunity to advocate for single payer as well.

[eridani]

4. Original article has accumulated a lot of comments

Politico Pro: EHB Comments Show Some Common Themes
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/February/02/essential-benefits.aspx

Believe it or not, businesses, insurers and consumers do see eye to eye on essential health benefits--well, on some parts, anyway. They're at odds on some of the bigger issues, which doesn't exactly come as a surprise. The comments submitted to HHS on its essential health benefits approach shows a wide divide between consumers ... and businesses and insurers, who don't see enough safeguards to keep the essential health benefits package affordable (Millman, 2/2).

Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: Yesterday we reported that some of the most politically powerful organizations in the nation have joined together in a coalition to try to weaken the package of "essential health benefits" that will be required of health plans under the Affordable Care Act. Excerpts from two new articles covered in the Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report should have us even more concerned.

In Politico Pro, it is reported that businesses and insurers "don't see enough safeguards to keep the essential health benefits package affordable." The proposal already has reduced the required benefits down to the relatively austere level of small group plans offered in the various states. These plans leave patients facing financial hardship when they must access health care.

Yet the powerful businesses and insurers want an even lower standard of benefits in order to keep the health benefits package affordable. The insurers want to protect their markets by keeping the insurance premiums affordable, and businesses also want the lowest premiums they can negotiate. Low premiums equate with higher out-of-pocket expenses for those with medical needs. In trying to make the health insurance plans more affordable, actual health care for the patients will be even less affordable.

As we have seen, the process has always been about powerful interests, with only a passive concern for patients.

In CQ HealthBeat, we see that comments on the proposal are being "sent to an email address rather than posted on a government website as would be the practice with a proposed regulation," and are "not being made public by the Obama administration."

The White House gave these special interests carte blanche with secretive access during the reform process. Secrecy continues. Should we be surprised when the final rule on "essential health benefits" pleases business and insurance interests, at a cost of exposing those with health care needs to greater financial hardship? No, not surprised. Outraged is more like it!

[Quantess]

5. Color me surprised.