Clark County AHU News

Supreme Court Arguments Get Even More Complicated

2012-02-10T15:07:00.000-08:00

Supreme Court Arguments Get Even More Complicated

FEBRUARY 9, 2012

(Alex Brandon; AP)

The U.S. Solicitor General is asking the Supreme Court to grant it more time to air its views on the Anti-Injunction Act issue during oral arguments on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law.

The development is important because appellate lawyers call the AIA issue a “sleeper.” If the court rules that this is a key threshold issue, it may determine that it cannot rule on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law until 2015, after which Americans must pay a penalty under the law for failing to get healthcare insurance.

“This highlights the increasing importance of this issue as part of the Court's consideration of the health care law,” said George Patton, Jr., an appellate lawyer and a partner at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Washington, D.C. and Indianapolis.

He said the federal government has a long-term institutional interest in making sure the AIA will stop other cases from going forward while still allowing the health care case to be decided by the Court. "In essence," Patton said, "the United States is trying to thread the needle.”

Patton also said that, as noted in the motion, “The positions of the United States and private parties is also different on severability--the federal government argues that most of the health care law would remain if the minimum coverage provision is struck down, while the private parties say the entire law is not severable from the minimum coverage provision.”

The Solicitor General's arguments are contained in a 10-page motion submitted to the Supreme Court this week.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, over a three-day span in late March. The first argument will be March 26.

In general, opponents of the law argue that it is unconstitutional for the government to require citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

Other arguments involve whether the government has the authority to require states to pay more for Medicaid in order to finance healthcare for the poor.

Another issue is “severability,” whether declaring the mandate to purchase insurance unconstitutional strikes down the entire law, or just the mandate portion.

In its motion, the Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., said the parties to the case “are in agreement on the allocation of time for the minimum coverage provision and Medicaid issues” during oral arguments in the case, scheduled for late March.

But, the Solicitor General said in the motion, “With respect to the AIA and severability issues, however, although the amicus curiae appointed by the Court on each of those issues agrees with the allocation of argument time to him under the proposed allocation set forth below, counsel for the private and state parties do not agree with the proposed allocation.”

The Solicitor General wants the argument on the AIA issue extended to 90 minutes.

Verrilli says in his motion that, “That expansion is appropriate in light of: the importance of this threshold issue, which has divided the lower courts and will determine whether the Court can entertain respondents’ challenge to the minimum coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act at all; the complexity of the legal issues involved; and the Court’s appointment of an amicus to argue that these suits are barred by the AIA.”

The motion said that the Solicitor General has been authorized “to represent that, as noted above, the Court-appointed amicus on this issue and counsel for the respondents join in this request to expand the oral argument time.”

The motion further says that, the Government, “alone among the parties, has a critical long-term institutional interest in the sound application of the AIA, because the Government has been and will continue to be the defendant in numerous cases in this Court and the lower courts in which the AIA is at issue.”

Verrilli adds in the motion, “It therefore is important that there be an opportunity for counsel for the Government to present, and for the Court to consider, a full explanation of the Government's position, which will be afforded by our proposed allocation.

Regarding severability, the government also seeks a re-ordering of time.

In the Solicitor General brief, Verrilli said, “petitioners and the Government do not agree on the proper result on severability if the Court were to hold the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional.”

The motion said that “Petitioners contend that in that event the entire Affordable Care Act must fall, while the Government takes the position that the Act's provisions concerning guaranteed issue and community rating in the insurance market are in severable from the minimum coverage provision but that the rest of the Act is severable.”

The motion said the “Government is thus in a position between the amicus and petitioners.

“Accordingly, counsel for the Government must have sufficient time at oral argument not only to respond to the amicus's position that the minimum coverage provision is severable from the Act's community-rating and guaranteed-issue provisions, but also to respond to petitioners' argument that the minimum coverage provision is in severable from the entire rest of the Act,” the motion said.

Here is a link to find out who your current government representatives are.

2011-12-09T11:22:00.001-08:00

Just enter your street address and your zip code.

http://mapserve.leg.state.nv.us/website/lcb/viewer.htm

Supreme Court Gets Ready

2011-12-06T15:03:00.001-08:00

Supreme Court Gets Ready

The Temptations may have sung about getting ready first, but the Supremes are actually doing it, at least as far as the constitutional challenge to PPACA is concerned. Since announcing last week that the court will hear NFIB v. Sebelius, the case being brought by both the National Federation of Independent Businesses and 26 states to challenge the health reform law, during 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a few key steps to prepare.
On Friday, November 18, the court announced the appointment of two attorneys independent from all parties to the case to argue two specific points in the case. H. Bartow Farr was asked to provide oral arguments in support of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the individual mandate provisions of PPACA can be completely severed from the rest of the law. A second attorney, Robert A. Long, was appointed by the Supreme Court to make the case during oral arguments that the federal Anti-Injunction Act, a tax law that prevents legal action on a tax prior to its effective date, would prevent the court from ruling on the individual mandate’s constitutionality before it goes into effect, since the individual mandate penalties have been construed by some as a tax.
The court has also announced that the unprecedented five and half hours of oral arguments on the case will take place over two consecutive days. Normally, only one hour of oral arguments is allowed on Supreme Court appeal cases. While a timeframe for the oral arguments has not been released, many speculate that they will be heard at the end of March 2012.
Meanwhile, both sides in this debate have ramped up their calls for Justices Kagan and Thomas to recuse themselves in the case. Conservative activists have been arguing that Kagan should recuse herself for months, since she previously served as President Obama’s Solicitor General. However, Kagan and the Justice Department have long maintained that Kagan was never involved in the development and defense of this case. PPACA supporters have encouraged Justice Thomas to recuse himself, since his wife has lobbied for entities that have opposed the law, and some groups feel this alleged conflict of interest was not disclosed. House Democrats wrote to the U.S. Judicial Conference on Friday urging that the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder investigate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in this matter. Meanwhile, Senate Republican leaders sent a letter to Attorney General Holder questioning his assertions about Kagan’s previous involvement in the health law case.
Not to be outdone, health policy nerds are also preparing for the case. The fine folks at Kaiser Health News have prepared this exciting chart that outlines all of the possible options for the health law, depending on how the Supreme Court rules on the variety of overlapping legal questions raised by the case. The folks at Politico describe it as a “choose your own adventure for health wonks,” and we would have to agree.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/November/18/supreme-court-health-law-chart-2012.aspx

NAIC Approves Resolution Calling for an MLR Fix for Brokers

2011-12-06T15:02:00.000-08:00

NAIC Approves Resolution Calling for an MLR Fix for Brokers

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) approved aresolution on November 22 calling on Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services to use their respective authorities to preserve consumer access to insurance agents and brokers by adjusting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act medical loss ratio requirements to accommodate agents and broker compensation. Following the vote, NAIC President and Iowa Insurance Commissioner Susan Voss released a statement and NAHU issued a press release.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 26-20-5 during a teleconference meeting of the NAIC’s Plenary Committee, which consists of the insurance commissioners from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. The conference call lasted more than 90 minutes and was, at times, quite contentious, with several moves by various dissenting commissioners to modify the resolution and delay the effort. However, the supporters of the measure stood firm and voted to oppose both a proposed amendment to substantially weaken the resolution and a call to send the matter back to the NAIC’s Executive Committee for further study.

The vocal proponents -- who included the resolution’s original author, Florida Insurance Commissioner and NAIC President-Elect Kevin McCarty, North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin, who made the motion for consideration of the resolution, Louisiana Insurance Commissioner and NAIC Vice President Jim Donelon and Georgia Insurance Commission Ralph Hudgens, who ultimately moved for the vote on the resolution -- cited the more than a year of debate on this issue and the urgency of MLR relief for both health insurance agents and brokers and health insurance consumers nationwide as reasons why immediate NAIC action was imperative.

The role call vote of commissioners to approve the resolution was as follows:

Voting to approve: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and American Samoan Islands.

Opposed: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.

Abstentions: Maine, Montana, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

Not present or not voting were Iowa (for procedural reasons), Guam, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Wisconsin.

NAHU is profoundly grateful for the NAIC’s support of agents, brokers and health insurance consumers that comes with the adoption of this resolution. We strongly encourage all members to thank their insurance commissioners who voted to stand with the agent and broker community on this issue.

Now that the vote is finished, many members have asked what it means for association’s ongoing work to fix the MLR requirements. The resolution is merely a policy statement from the NAIC, so it will have no immediate impact. However, PPACA established a role for the NAIC with regard to the development of the MLR requirements and has accept virtually all of its counsel on both MLR specifically and PPACA generally to date. As HHS works to develop the final MLR requirements, this resolution will hopefully serve as the additional push needed to spur the Department to fix this problem through regulatory channels.

In addition, the measure is expected to give additional interest and credibility to H.R. 1206, the bipartisan legislation to remove agent and broker compensation from the MLR calculation. The House Small Business Committee plans to hold a hearing on the impact of the MLR requirements on American health care consumers next month, and we expect that the NAIC resolution will factor into that hearing. H.R. 1206 currently has 138 bipartisan cosponsors, and more are always appreciated. Please encourage your representative to sign onto this measure today.

NAIC Discusses Resolution to Urge HHS Action on MLR

2011-11-08T15:13:00.000-08:00

NAIC Discusses Resolution to Urge HHS Action on MLR

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) met this past week in National Harbor, MD and a prominent topic of discussion was a resolution to ask the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to act immediately to address agent/broker compensation relative to the medical loss ratio (MLR) regulation.

The “Resolution Urging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to Take Action to Ensure Continued Consumer Access to Professional Health Insurance Producers,” was drafted by Florida Commissioner Kevin McCarty. Twenty-two other states co-sponsored the resolution, including New Hampshire, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Dakota, Nevada, Wisconsin, Ohio, Utah, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, and Nebraska. In addition to those states, quite a few other commissioners pledged their support for the measure.

Citing process concerns, and the fact that many commissioners had to leave the meeting early, NAIC President and Iowa Insurance Commissioner Susan Voss did not allow for a vote on the issue at the association’s executive/plenary meeting yesterday. Instead, a teleconference to consider the issue will be held on November 22. NAHU encourages all members from states with commissioners who co-sponsored the resolution to thank their Departments of Insurance for their support. We will be directly working with members in the remaining 27 states on state-specific strategies prior to the November 22 call.

AHIP to HHS: Maybe Exchange Boards Should Understand Insurance?

2011-11-07T16:23:00.000-08:00

REAL-TIME ALERTS ON HEALTH CARE REFORM FOR INSURANCE AGENTS AND BROKERS

AHIP to HHS: Maybe Exchange Boards Should Understand Insurance?
Health insurers believe the boards of the new health coverage distribution entities ought to know something about health insurance.…Click here to read more.

PPACA Rebates Start to Affect Earnings
Aetna and Assurant say the new medical loss ratio rules are nibbling at results.…Click here to read more.

More Health Insurance Stories
Republicans: PPACA Tax Credit to Favor Singles
House Passes Health Package

_________________________________________________________

Is Preventive Care Really Free?
In an effort to keep health care costs down and encourage better usage, the Affordable Care Act includes a provision that requires preventive care to be offered free of charge. While that may sound good in theory, some benefits experts do not buy into this �free� health care.…Click here to read more.

More Group Health Insurance Stories
House Votes to Trim Some Health Benefits
Employees Find Greater Value in Benefits

Silver State Exchange Board Meeting - Oct. 26 at 9 am

2011-10-21T14:06:00.000-07:00

NAHU's Washington Update

2011-10-18T14:17:00.000-07:00

October 17, 2011

In This Issue

	CLASS Dismissed
	Final ACO Rule Will Likely Be Released This Week
	Everyone Has Ideas for the Supercommittee
	HHS is "Listening" to Ideas on Essential Benefits
	NAHU Member Testifies Before House Education and Workforce Committee
	NAHU is Moving!

Tools

	E-mail the Editor
	Visit the NAHU Website
	Printer Friendly Version
	RSS Feed
	Unsubscribe

CLASS Dismissed

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced last Friday her recommendation to halt implementation of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. In letters to congressional leaders, Sebelius wrote that she does not see “a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time,” and recommends a halt to the program’s implementation efforts. NAHU has always maintained that the CLASS Act provisions of PPACA were unworkable, and we have consistently called for the repeal of these provisions. Read More

Final ACO Rule Will Likely Be Released This Week

HHS officials have been doing a lot of winking and nodding lately when asked if the final rule on accountable care organizations (ACOs) will be ready soon, and based on the growing number of flat-out hints that a big announcement is coming, we predict that it will be publicly released later this week. Read More

Everyone Has Ideas for the Supercommittee

Last Friday was the deadline for traditional congressional committees and other interested parties to get their deficit reduction ideas in to the “supercommittee” for consideration, and not surprisingly, there were no shortage of submissions. In addition to receiving comments from every possible interest group, a wide variety of standing congressional committees and members of Congress submitted comments. Read More

HHS is "Listening" to Ideas on Essential Benefits

Now that the Institute of Medicine has released its recommendations to HHS regarding PPACA’s essential benefit requirements, HHS has announced it will be hosting a series of “listening sessions” over the next few weeks to get public feedback. The agency will use the information it gathers from the listening sessions, along with the IOM report, to formulate the essential benefit regulation, which is expected to be released in “late spring 2012.” Read More

NAHU Member Testifies Before House Education and Workforce Committee

NAHU member Dennis Donohue testified before the House Energy and Workforce committee last Thursday, October 13. Dennis, who is Managing Director, National Practice Leader for Employee Benefits, for Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc., is also a leader in the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers (CIAB) and testified on behalf of CIAB about the hardship PPACA's grandfather plan rules and other onerous regulations are having on employers and the agent and broker community. Read More

NAHU is Moving!

NAHU is moving its offices! In order to facilitate the move, the office will be closed October 28 and re-opening in our new offices on Monday, October 31. The NAHU website will also be down during that time, and NAHU staff e-mails will be unavailable.The new contact information for NAHU’s national office is:

1212 New York Avenue, NW, Ste. 1100
Washington DC 20005
Phone: 202-552-5060
Fax: 202-747-6820

HEADS-UP Legislative Update - October 2011

2011-10-14T08:46:00.000-07:00

HEADS-UP Legislative Update
October 2011

Upcoming Events

NAHU Capitol Conference 2012
Taking Care of Business: Our Response to Health Reform Moving Forward
January 23-25, 2012

Mark your calendars for this year’s Capitol Conference taking place January 23-25 at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Our theme this year is Taking Care of Business: Our Response to Health Reform Moving Forward and will host a full day of health policy education and discussions followed by two days of various speakers focusing on containing health care costs and providing health care solutions that work. With the 2012 presidential and congressional elections looming, it is vital NAHU members from across the country join in Washington to educate lawmakers on the role of health insurance agents and brokers and advocate for our crucial position in the private market delivery system!

Government Relations Activity

Medical Loss Ratio and H.R. 1206 Update

The NAHU-supported legislation, H.R. 1206, to amend PPACA by removing independent agent and broker compensation from the MLR requirement, has garnered 128 cosponsors including 17 Democrats. Thanks to grassroots outreach by NAHU members over the August recess, many additional legislators signed on to support the bill after returning to town in September. Remember, it’s not too late to help with outreach to your legislators—more are always welcome. Now is also the time to reach out to state insurance regulators to ask them to support the bipartisan legislation. To view whether your legislator has signed on, please click here.
NAHU CEO Janet Trautwein testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health on September 15. The hearing, entitled “Cutting the Red Tape: Saving Jobs From PPACA’s Harmful Regulations,” served as an extension of the committee’s June hearing focusing on the harmful impact of PPACA regulations on the American economy, specifically those related to the MLR and grandfathered plan provisions. Janet’s testimony updated the committee on the adverse impact of MLR on the nation’s health insurance producers and called for immediate regulatory or legislative action. Watch coverage from the hearing here.
A recent report issued by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) closely examined PPACA’s MLR requirement and its early effects on private health insurance. The report, “Private Health Insurance: Early Experiences Implementing New Medical Loss Ratio Requirements,” was based on anonymous interviews with health insurers performed between December 2010 and July 2011. The report’s findings highlight commission cuts to health insurance producers in an attempt to comply with the law’s 80 to 85 percent MLR standard as one of the largest consequences of the requirement. NAHU CEO Janet Trautwein referenced the report’s findings during her testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
NAHU’s Federal Affairs team continues to work with a number of key Senate offices on a multi-pronged approach to move the MLR issue through regulatory as well as legislative action.
September marked a busy month for states seeking adjustments to PPACA MLR requirements in their individual markets. North Carolina and Oklahoma submitted their waiver requests to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last month, while Delaware became the second state after North Dakota to be denied its request for an MLR standard adjustment. Delaware was denied on the basis that immediately adopting the 80 percent standard would not destabilize their market and that the state’s insurers would remain profitable even after paying rebates to consumers.
North Carolina and Oklahoma became the 16th and 17th states to apply for an MLR waiver from HHS. North Carolina is asking for a 72 percent standard this year followed by a 74 percent standard in 2012 and a 76 percent standard in 2013 before reaching 80 percent in 2014. Oklahoma has asked for a 65 percent standard this year, a 70 percent standard next year and a 75 percent standard in 2013 before also reaching 80 percent in 2014. Oklahoma is unique in the sense that their waiver application asked for an adjustment in the individual as well as small group market. This request comes after HHS clarified in its response to the territory of Guam’s waiver application that they only hold statutory authority to grant adjustments for the individual market. Despite this earlier declaration, Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak and their entire congressional delegation urged HHS to approve the waiver.
State-level waiver applications now include 17 states that have requested the MLR adjustment with five states approved, two denied (Guam’s application was deemed unnecessary) and nine states still waiting to hear back on their pending applications.

State-Based Exchange Activity

There was a lot of activity on the exchange front this past month as NAHU and other stakeholders worked to meet the September 28 deadline for public comments on the first wave of proposed regulations for the state-based exchanges created by PPACA. Shortly before the due date, HHS extended the comment period setting a new deadline of October 31. NAHU’s volunteer Exchange Working Group in conjunction with NAHU staff worked tirelessly throughout the summer to provide extensive comments to HHS on behalf of our membership and will be submitting them soon.
September 23 served as the second-to-last application deadline for states seeking Level One exchange establishment grants. These grants provide up to one year of funding to states that have made progress under their exchange planning grant. At the end of that year, states can then apply for an additional year’s funding under the Level One grant if they need additional time to meet the criteria allowing them to apply for Level Two establishment grants. The Level Two grants are designed to provide funding for those states that meet set criteria and are further along in the establishment of their exchange. Level Two funding is available through December 31, 2014. Politico recently reported they expect to see some states applying for Level Two grants in the next few weeks.
The six-city HHS listening tour wrapped up in late September after hearing feedback from various stakeholder groups in Portland, Denver, Atlanta, New York City, Sacramento and Chicago. The forums centered on key issues and provisions of exchange establishment and implementation. Several NAHU members, including State Affairs Director Pam Mitroff, were able to attend a few of the invitation-only meetings and represent the interests of health insurance agents and brokers at the sessions.
Following a recent D.C.-based meeting of officials from 46 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories, HHS announced additional details regarding the framework of a federal exchange. The federal fallback exchanges will be comprised of partnership options between states and the federal government when operating the state exchange marketplaces. The plan, called the “Affordable Insurance Exchange Partnership Options Initiative” offers states the choice of a permanent partnership or a temporary one serving as a transition step to a fully functional state-based exchange. Under the proposed federal framework model, states may choose one of three options: state plan management, state consumer assistance or both plan management as well as consumer assistance.
When choosing the plan management option, states will oversee the collection and analysis of plan information, monitoring and oversight of plans, and data collection and analysis. HHS would then coordinate with the state to handle plan oversight, including consumer complaints and any issues with enrollment reconciliation.
States selecting the consumer assistance functions would be responsible for overseeing in-person consumer assistance, management of the navigator program and conducting outreach and education for the exchange. Other functions such as call center operations, consumer website activities and written communication with consumers assisting in eligibility and enrollment would be operated by HHS.
HHS did make it clear that in states that adopt the federal framework, HHS would exercise the responsibility of ensuring the exchange meets all of the necessary standards.

New Developments in PPACA's Ongoing Legal Battle

The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). This decision marked the next step in what has been, and will assuredly continue to be, an extremely high-profile suit. This move positions the Supreme Court to potentially hear the case during the court’s next term which begins later this month.
The suit is the largest challenge to PPACA and has now seen three circuit courts rule differently on the issue. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law’s individual mandate requirement in August leaving the Justice Department with the choice of pursuing an en banc review from the full 11th Circuit Court or directly asking the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the mandate. Some Washington pundits suspected the administration would pursue the en banc review in an effort to delay Supreme Court action on its signature health reform legislation until after the 2012 presidential election. Other experts argue that the administration has plenty of reasons to request Supreme Court action. For one, the issues surrounding the individual mandate have been well-argued to three separate courts, and perhaps more importantly, the uncertainty surrounding the law continues to influence the broader economy as many point to it as one of the largest obstacles employers face when considering hiring.
The administration has until November to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. The court rarely rejects requests from the federal government to hear a case, especially when the issues involved have large political significance and contain multiple conflicting rulings. The timing of a final ruling on the mandate is left largely up to the justices, who may exercise caution about weighing in on such a high-profile, politically charged case.

Much-Anticipated Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey Released

The health policy world was abuzz last week with the release of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual Employer Health Benefits survey. Data from the survey illustrated premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance plans rose between 8 and 9 percent to approximately $5,400 for an individual and slightly more than $15,000 for a family, marking a more than 3 percent increase from the 2010 figures. Kaiser analysts point out that the rise is in line with the average 10 percent premium increase going back to 2001.
Opponents of PPACA declare that premiums have already risen by $2,213 during the Obama administration while the White House proclaims that encouraging signs about health care costs exist, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics health insurance employer cost index hitting a 10-year low in the first two quarters of 2011. Other industry stakeholders weighed in on the Kaiser data, including America’s Health Insurance Plans, who urged state and federal policymakers to focus on all factors affecting premium increases such as rising prices for medical services, additional benefits and coverage mandates that add to the overall cost of insurance and modifications in the covered population resulting in an older and sicker risk pool.
The survey also contained data revealing that less than one-third or 29 percent of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees that offer health insurance coverage have attempted to determine their eligibility for PPACA’s small-business tax credit. PPACA offers a tax credit of up to 35 percent of premium costs to small businesses with fewer than 25 full-time employees earning on average less than $50,000. The credit is offered to firms that pay at least half of each employee’s premium costs and lasts for two years. The deadline for applying for the credit occurred in mid-September.
The survey found that approximately half of the firms surveyed that are not currently offering health insurance said they were aware of the tax credit, with 15 percent saying it made them more likely to consider offering coverage. These findings aligned with similar reports released in a January survey sponsored by PPACA supporter, the Small Business Majority, that found 43 percent of eligible small businesses were familiar with the tax credit compared to 56 percent that were either unaware or had little knowledge of it.

Association Health Plans (AHPs) Now Subject to Rate Review

HHS released a final regulation in early September specifying that AHPs will be subject to PPACA’s rate review provisions that began last month. Health insurers that raise premiums more than 10 percent are now subject to heightened scrutiny by state insurance departments, or HHS if the state’s review process was not deemed stringent enough. HHS is conducting reviews in Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Wyoming and in Pennsylvania and Virginia for group market rates.
With the extension of rate review provisions to AHPs, HHS must now determine which states have the ability to review AHP plans without relying on federal support. States that may have authority to review premium increases in their individual and group markets may find that they do not pass in their ability to review AHP plans since the plans have not previously been reviewed as strictly as other products in some states.
AHP provisions of the rate review requirements begin on November 1.

Watch for October 7 Release of IOM’s Essential Benefits Report

The press office of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently announced that the much-anticipated essential benefits report will be released on Friday, October 7. The IOM is the group charged with undertaking a study that will ultimately result in recommendations to HHS on the criteria and methods for determining the essential health benefits package under PPACA. The October release falls slightly behind the group’s self-imposed deadline of the end of September.
Lingering uncertainties remain as to when HHS will release the corresponding rule detailing exactly how the IOM’s recommendations must be utilized by employers and individual and small group health plans.

NAHU staff analysis of the essential benefits report will be included in the following Monday’s edition of the Washington Update.

2011-10-03T14:27:00.000-07:00

As discussed at our September CCAHU meeting, this is the link to the Silver State Exchange Website. On this site, you can find a wealth of information on when/where community meetings are held, topics, agendas, minutes and much, much more: http://dhhs.nv.gov/HC_Reform_Exchanges.htm

NAIC Quiet On Bill For Insurance Brokers

2011-07-13T11:11:00.000-07:00

The Hill (7/12, Baker) "Healthwatch" blog reported that "state insurance regulators won't vote any time soon on whether to endorse a bill that would exempt insurance agents from part of healthcare reform. A task force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) recently recommended endorsing the bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), that would carve out agents' and brokers' commissions from a section of the new law that limits how much insurance companies can spend on administrative costs." However, Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said he would not ask the NAIC to vote on the issue. Health Care for America Now executive director Ethan Rome said the NAIC doesn't usually endorse federal laws, and that this issue is "too divisive."

CQ (7/13, Norman, Subscription Publication) reports, "The move was significant, because the bill is thought to have a better chance of progressing in Congress if it has the backing of the state regulators, who have been influential in advising the federal government's implementation of the federal health care law." CQ notes that "under the health care overhaul, insurance companies in the individual and small group market must spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on medical care or quality improvements rather than administrative costs. ... Brokers say that means insurance companies are cutting their fees in order to trim administrative expenses."

Don’t miss the letter to the editor “Health reform law hurts insurance agents, small businesses” by NAHU CEO Janet Trautwein

2011-05-31T09:22:00.000-07:00

Published in today's Las Vegas Sun. Click Here to Read The Editorial!

May Member Meeting

2011-04-27T08:18:00.001-07:00

Click Here to Register!!!

March 8, 2011 - Member Meeting

2011-03-02T11:31:00.000-08:00

Click Here To Register!!!

NEW LOCATION FOR MEMBER MEETING LUNCHEON

2011-01-04T09:26:00.000-08:00

8905 W. Post Rd., Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89148

Driving Directions: 215 to Sunset Road exit – the 1st exit S. of Russell. Turn Right on Sunset to the 2nd right turn on to Riley – take Riley to Post Rd. Turn Left take Post road to the building complex. 8905 W. Post is on the North end of the complex. 8905 W. Post Rd. Go to the 2nd floor – follow the signs to the meeting room. Or 215 to Durango Road – turn North to Sunset – the 1st Left turn at the light by the Chevron Station. Then to Riley turn right on Riley to Post Rd.

October Membership Meeting & Luncheon

2010-09-16T15:37:00.000-07:00

When:
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 11:30 a.m.

Where:
VIEW 215
9130 West Russell Road
Las Vegas, NV 89148

Members:
$30.00

Non-Members:
$35.00

To register go to:

www.mymemberlink.com/nvccahu

On lunches and politics: An open letter to CCAHU members

2010-08-05T12:50:00.000-07:00

I’ve received some feedback regarding our luncheons that I wanted to share with membership and more importantly, address. One point is highly controversial and the other is more for understanding.

The first is our choice of speakers this month, Sharron Angle. We’re primarily an educational association--we’re certainly not a political organization. However, my duty as President is to help preserve the good of the order and to allow us to thrive into the future. With PPACA now the law of the land, my ability to comply with these duties has come under serious attack so that we are now in survival mode. I’ll be on vacation in Kansas shortly so I’ll borrow an appropriate maxim from that neck of the woods-- you don’t plant your crops when your storehouse is on fire.

Over our history, we’ve traditionally tried to be neutral in the political arena. Opinions, as well as political leanings, tend to be a highly personal thing and the potential to offend by promoting a particular agenda is high. NAIFA faced a similar quandary when they were presented with an opportunity to have Sharron speak at a national level, which they declined. The reasons for the declination were many but it boiled down to this: NAIFA’s core business is life insurance and investments, not health insurance. In fact, I was informed that they actually lost membership because they did not support the PPACA legislation.

We, however, ARE involved in the health insurance market…intimately. For those who understand the legislation, we know that it will threaten our livelihood, possibly even eliminate it. I don’t know about you, but my chosen profession is an extension of who I am, which is HIGHLY personal to me. Between the MLR provisions, the Exchange provisions and the calling to resurrect the public plan option, our industry and profession continues to be threatened. This legislation will not, as one uninformed, wishful-thinking agent (not a member) recently told me, “just go away”. No, it needs to be fought long and hard on multiple points.

Which brings me to our speaker, Sharron Angle. The reason I asked her to speak is two-fold: 1) She supports free-market reforms as a way to reform the system, and 2) to give our membership a close-up look at this candidate. She is far different than how some perceive her. A member recently told me that they would not attend the luncheon because they didn’t want to listen to that (less-than-flattering-colloquialism). I asked if she had spoken to her personally and what she based that upon—answer was “no” and “the media” respectively…she’s coming to the meeting.

As President, I do not necessarily need to support all of Sharron’s positions nor do you. Her position on health reform is the only issue that matters to me as President of CCAHU. Personally, I may not see eye-to-eye with her on other platforms or even health reform. I would suggest however, that if that’s case for you on health reform, you’re in the wrong business. I also understand that as a junior Senator, she won’t have a rubber-stamp, but instead will be one more vote against the current majority party’s support of PPACA in it’s entirety. The same goes for her other positions: She’s one vote, not the decision-maker. But it’s how health reform is ultimately enacted that’s the key here. That’s where our focus should be.

The other point will be brief. I’ve been told that our lunches are too expensive for what is served. You’re right—I can get our lunches for much less than $30—if that’s all we were getting. That $30 covers not only the food, but the serving staff, the audio-visual equipment, the internet connection, the microphone and sound system, the private use of the venue, etc etc etc. The alternative would be to fold the costs into the dues like NAIFA does and include lunch—NAHU’s monthly dues are currently less than half of what NAIFA’s dues are. (Note: NAHU National dues are going up January 1st $75 a year).

In closing, as President I do what I think is right for the association, our industry, and our clients who look to us for guidance. How you vote come November 3rd is up to you. At least you’ll have a first hand look unfiltered by media on which to base your decision on the newest candidate.

P.S. I’ve made a similar request of Reid’s office, even so far as to extend it to Reid’s Senior Health Liaison Officer a month ago. I’m still waiting for a response.

Dan Heffley
CCAHU President