Htown Harry
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- May 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,525
This week, we reached one of the first milestones of the new federal health care act - a deadline for the states to tell HHS whether or not they would be setting up their own high-risk pools.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8066.pdf
Which choices were available to your state?
Which option did your state choose?
What was their justification for the choice?
Will this have an effect on E-R for you?
My state Texas, has a high risk pool already and was choosing among #3, #4 and #5.
To no one's surprise, Gov. Perry chose option #5. (We're one of the states whose AG's are challenging the new health care law).
The justification was financial risk:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8066.pdf
On April 2, 2010, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a letter that gives states the following options for operating the temporary high-risk pool:
(1) Operate a new high-risk pool alongside an existing state high-risk pool;
(2) Establish a new high-risk pool if the state does not currently have one;
(3) Build upon other existing coverage programs designed to cover high-risk individuals;
(4) Contract with current HIPAA insurance carriers or insurers of last resort to provide subsidized coverage; or
(5) Do nothing, in which case the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would carry out the coverage program in the state.
The Secretary’s letter asked states to submit a letter of intent regarding which option they will pursue by April 30, 2010.
For states opting out, the feds will establish a temporary national high-risk pool to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. (Until 2014, when the state exchanges go into effect and health insurance companies no longer would be allowed to deny coverage to people in poor health.)(1) Operate a new high-risk pool alongside an existing state high-risk pool;
(2) Establish a new high-risk pool if the state does not currently have one;
(3) Build upon other existing coverage programs designed to cover high-risk individuals;
(4) Contract with current HIPAA insurance carriers or insurers of last resort to provide subsidized coverage; or
(5) Do nothing, in which case the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would carry out the coverage program in the state.
The Secretary’s letter asked states to submit a letter of intent regarding which option they will pursue by April 30, 2010.
Which choices were available to your state?
Which option did your state choose?
What was their justification for the choice?
Will this have an effect on E-R for you?
My state Texas, has a high risk pool already and was choosing among #3, #4 and #5.
To no one's surprise, Gov. Perry chose option #5. (We're one of the states whose AG's are challenging the new health care law).
The justification was financial risk:
"As we've seen in federal education and stimulus programs, the administration is again asking states to commit to a program without knowing the rules of engagement," Perry stated in a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
"I do not believe that the aggressive implementation and the lack of assurances on financial solvency of the program are in the best interest of Texas taxpayers, families, patients or health care providers."
Fortunately, lacking pre-existing conditions, I don't have a dog in this particular hunt. My E-R schedule and strategies are unchanged."I do not believe that the aggressive implementation and the lack of assurances on financial solvency of the program are in the best interest of Texas taxpayers, families, patients or health care providers."