Is HHS Compromising with Insurers?
And as we well know—states have jumped into action taking an aggressive stance against insurers that drop child-only plans. For instance, California health plans are barred from issuing individual market policies for five years if they chose not to offer child-only coverage.
Since the ball is in the hands of state regulators, the best HHS can do is ask them to take any possible action—even to the point of seeking legislation—to "preserve options for children to obtain coverage regardless of their health status." In other words: play nice, like we have.
It's a fine line ensuring the solvency of insurers while providing a key provision of healthcare reform: ensuring already-sick kids can receive healthcare coverage. HHS and health plans appear to be walking it, albeit precariously, together. The question is will the states join them?
- $6.4B Henry Ford, Beaumont Merger Failed on Cultural Hurdles
- Don't Let Nurses Sink Your Bottom Line
- Hospitals Profit On Bloodstream Infections
- Fortunately, Angelina Jolie Isn't On Medicare
- Less Blood Testing for Some Surgeries Safe, Cost Effective
- Lower ED Margins Demand a Better Strategy
- How Chargemaster Data May Affect Hospital Revenue
- Primary Care Docs Average More Hospital Revenue Than Specialists
- House Lawmakers Grill CMS Over Health Exchange Navigators
- ED Physicians Key to Half of Hospital Admissions