AP sources: Obama to announce new health benefits

[babylonsister]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_overhaul


AP sources: Obama to announce new health benefits

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday will announce new health insurance benefits for consumers, marking the first 90 days since he signed landmark legislation to expand coverage.

The announcement will follow a private meeting between administration officials, several state insurance commissioners, and CEOs of major insurance company, amid concerns over continued premium hikes, the White House said. Obama is expected to attend at least part of the session.

Consumers who buy their policies directly faced increases averaging 20 percent this year, according to a survey released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Although most Americans are covered on the job, about 14 million purchase insurance on the individual market and have the least bargaining power when it comes to costs.

Obama's announcement will cover regulations to implement a so-called patient's bill of rights provided under the new law, said administration allies who were briefed in advance and spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the official announcement.

The consumer safeguards are limited steps that take effect this year. The main provisions of the legislation, including federal funding to help 32 million now uninsured get coverage, won't come until 2014. The administration worries that escalating premiums will force more people drop their policies before the law is fully implemented.

Obama foreshadowed parts of his announcement last week, telling a nurses' group that the patient bill of rights would include the elimination of lifetime dollar limits on coverage, a particular problem for people dealing with hard-to-treat types of cancer. Insurance companies would be prohibited from canceling the policies of people who get sick, he added. And health plans would be required to provide consumers with simple and clear information about their choices and rights.

The law also calls for other safeguards to be put in place this year, including allowing women to pick an ob-gyn specialist as their primary care doctor and forbidding insurers from denying coverage to children on account of a previous medical problem. Protection against insurance denials would extend to adults in 2014, when most Americans would be required to carry coverage.

[tmyers09]

1. Okay, I can dig this.

[eridani]

2. What I get out of it

As an early retiree, if I give up my doctor, the government gives my former employer more money. Color me seriously unimpressed.

[northoftheborder]

3. "amid concerns over continued premium hikes,"

What so many of us were worried about all along, and what was in the bill to prevent or stop that???? No one has showed me anything yet.

[zipplewrath]

5. There isn't much

As long as they can tie the rate increases to health CARE cost increases, they are free to raise their rates. There's no real requirement that they control health care costs. If rates go up too quickly, we'll start to be considered "cadillac" plans.

[Clio the Leo]

4. love that hopey changey stuff!

[niceypoo]

6. Lets hope it has something to stop price gouging

So I can afford to see a doctor again.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. The administration worries that escalating premiums will force more people drop their policies

"The administration worries that escalating premiums will force more people drop their policies before the law is fully implemented."

No shit? Really? Who could have foreseen that double digit price increases might price people out of coverage? I am just completely astonished.

On the more bs to combat beat:

*Yes, HCR has lifetime limits, but did not drop annual limits which a patient can still hit. The annual limits have a nebulous definition of "reasonable" which apparently the HHS Secretary is in charge of defining

*Insurance carriers have the SAME right of recission they did before reform - fraud and misrepresentation. Now however, the misrepresentation or fraud has to be "material" which could possibly help a little, I guess. We'll see. A cost benefit analysis done by the insurers will probably encourgae them to go ahead with their homicidal recissions and let the patient sue to determine "material" or "relevance". We're supposed to trust their judgment and ethical practices now? Right.

*As far as I know, woman have been allowed to pick an ob-gyn as their primary for years, but ok.

*Pre-existing condition exclusion forbidden for children but their parents can be excluded and die off for 4 more years, or at minimum leave themselves uncovered for six months before they may qualify for the high risk pool coverage, cost unknown at this point. (If anyone has any examples of a high risk pool in place along with some idea of the costs of coverage, that would be appreciated)