Health Coverage and Access – Page 20 – The National Academy for State Health Policy

Webinar: How States Pay for Hep C Drugs Using a “Netflix-style” Subscription Model

May 15, 2019/in Policy Louisiana, Oregon, Washington Webinars Administrative Actions, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Prescription Drug Pricing /by NASHP Staff

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
3 p.m. (ET)

View Webinar Download Webinar

Faced with costly and effective treatment for hepatitis C, states are exploring innovative alternative payment methodologies (APMs) to expand access to treatment and generate savings. Using a “Netflix-style” subscription model, Louisiana and Washington are negotiating agreements with drug manufacturers to get unlimited access to hepatitis C drugs for a fixed, predetermined cost. Join this NASHP webinar to hear about Louisiana and Washington’s innovative APMs as well as related research into hepatitis C from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
Moderator: Trish Riley, Executive Director, National Academy for State Health Policy
Speakers:

Pete Croughan, Health Policy Advisor, Louisiana Department of Public Health
Donna Sullivan, MS, PharmD, Chief Pharmacy Officer, Washington Health Care Authority
Robyn Liu, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University

Vermont Uses an Accountable Care Organization Model to Promote Developmental Screenings during Well-Child Visits

May 13, 2019/in Policy Vermont Reports Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Eligibility and Enrollment, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Quality and Measurement, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, State Insurance Marketplaces, Value-Based Purchasing /by Megan Lent and Carrie Hanlon

Without early identification and treatment of development delays, children may face long-lasting and costly consequences. With more states reporting their developmental screening Child Core Set measures and new federal initiatives promoting value-based payment for children’s health, Vermont’s innovative affordable care organization’s approach can provide valuable insights. This fact sheet describes Vermont’s strategy to prioritize developmental screenings of children covered by Medicaid during well-child visits.

View or download: Vermont Uses an Accountable Care Organization Model to Prioritize Developmental Screenings during Well-Child Visits, May 2019
To learn about other state initiatives, visit NASHP’s Healthy Child Development State Resource Center.
To learn more about states’ Medicaid Incentives and Measures for Developmental Screening, view NASHP’s map.

Palliative Care: A Primer for State Policymakers

May 13, 2019/in Policy Reports Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Community Health Workers, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Long-Term Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Palliative Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Workforce Capacity /by Lyndsay Sanborn and Kitty Purington

Webinar: So You Think You Want a State-based Marketplace? Here’s How!

May 10, 2019/in Policy District Of Columbia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Nevada Webinars Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Medicaid Expansion, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP Staff

Friday, May 10
2-3 p.m. (ET)

View Webinar Download Webinar

State-based health insurance marketplaces (SBMs) outperform those using the federal platform – achieving lower premium rate hikes and providing more competition and plan choices. As a result, some states are thinking about converting to an SBM, but what does it take for a state to make the switch? During this webinar, SBM executives from Washington, DC, Idaho, and Massachusetts will share lessons in how to build effective SBMs based on their years of experience.

Nevada Health Link Executive Director Heather Korbulic will share how her state’s transition to an SBM, for the 2020 open enrollment period, is faring.

Read this NASHP Q&A with Heather Korbulic: Nevada’s Insurance Exchange Director Talks about Transitioning to a State-based Marketplace and Saving Millions, April 2018

Twelve State-based Marketplace Leaders Express Serious Concerns about Federal Health Reimbursement Arrangement Rule Changes

April 29, 2019/in Policy Blogs Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP Writers

In an April 29, 2019 letter to the secretaries of the departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services, 12 state-based marketplace leaders expressed serious concerns about delays in proposed federal rules that would significantly change states’ insurance markets and marketplaces in 2020.
The proposed rules would impact health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) — allowing employers to deposit pre-tax funds into accounts for employees to use to purchase insurance coverage. Previously, HRAs could only be tapped to purchase certain medical services and equipment. The government originally proposed the rule changes last October, but it has not released a final version of these rules yet, despite the fact the proposed changes are proposed to go into effect in 2020.
As proposed, implementation of the rule would require marketplaces to make significant policy and operational changes. With 2020 rate-filing deadlines starting next month and open enrollment beginning in six months, there is little time for marketplaces to implement changes.
In their letter, marketplace leaders emphasize that last-minute changes imposed by the final rule will lead to significant costs and a hasty implementation that would “detract from attention and service to marketplace enrollees and locally determined priorities for marketplace functionality.” They also point out that little time remains to adjust insurance product offerings to account for the hundreds of thousands of individuals expected to switch from the group health market into individual market coverage.

View the letter marketplace leaders sent to the secretaries of the departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services here.
For a full summary of changes proposed under the rule read: New Federal Health Reimbursement Proposal Adds New Variables to State Health Insurance Markets

Maryland Passes Nation’s First Prescription Drug Affordability Board Legislation

April 15, 2019/in Policy Maryland Blogs Administrative Actions, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Medicaid Managed Care, Newly-Enacted Laws, Prescription Drug Pricing, State Rx Legislative Action /by Jane Horvath

On April 8, 2019, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation that which would create the first state Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB) to address the costs of certain high-priced drugs in Maryland. Gov. Larry Hogan has until May 31, 2019, to sign or veto the bill. If he signs the bill or does nothing, the measure will take effect on July 1, 2019.
This effort, initiated during last year’s legislative session, began with the introduction of the National Academy for State Health Policy’s Drug Affordability Review Board Model Legislation. The concept is akin to states’ regulation of consumer payment rates for essential services, such as clean drinking water, safe and consistent electricity, and public transportation. Like prescription drugs, these services are necessary for a safe and healthy life. States act to ensure that these necessary services are affordable to the public without regard to the actual dollar value of their importance to modern life. A prescription drug affordability board looks at valuable drugs and determines at what cost they are affordable – at what cost will everyone who needs the drug be able to afford the drug.
The Maryland legislation that passed is a notable step towards establishing a board that could make informed recommendations to state leadership on future action Maryland may take to address prescription drug costs, even though it represents compromises resulting in changes to the original proposal. As many know, this is how the legislative process typically works. The legislation does create the new Maryland PDAB, which must report to a committee of key legislative leaders for the first several years to get approval to move forward with key phases of its work. The timeline for Maryland’s PDAB activity is as follows:
July 1, 2019: The PDAB is established using state general funds and begins its work.
On or before Dec. 31, 2020, the board must:

Study the entire pharmaceutical distribution and payment system, as well as policy options used by other states and countries to lower the list price of pharmaceuticals, including:
- Setting upper payment limits;
- Using a reverse auction marketplace; and
- Bulk purchasing of drugs.

Submit findings and make recommendations, as well as provide any legislative language that may be necessary to implement its recommendations, to the state’s Senate Finance and House Health and Government Operations Committees.

Identify circumstances under which the cost of a prescription drug product may create or has create affordability challenges for the state health care system and patients.
Promulgate regulations that specify data sources the PDAB will use for its work, including establishing memoranda of understanding (MOU) with states that currently collect data from drug manufacturers and the rest of supply chain, insurers, and PBMs.
Identify drugs that create affordability challenges in the state by applying the established criteria and deciding whether to do a full review of any of those drugs.
Produce annual reports for House and Senate committees on drug price trends, the number of drugs subject to PDAB review, and any additional legislation that might be needed to facilitate drug cost containment.
Make a recommendation for a funding source to sustain the board.

On or before July 1, 2021: If the work of the PDAB in 2020 results in a recommendation that the state pursue imposing upper payment limits to make drugs affordable, the board is required to draft and submit a plan of action to implement upper payment limits for state, local, and county government payers and purchasers to the Legislative Policy Committee of the General Assembly.
On or after Jan. 1, 2022: If the plan of action for upper payment limits is approved, the board may begin to set upper payment limits or establish other approaches to constrain costs of prescription drug products purchased or paid for by state, county, and local governments, including state hospitals, government employee plans, corrections, and Medicaid, etc. The board must also study the impact on availability of drugs subject to the upper payment limit.
On or before Dec. 1, 2023: If the plan of action for upper payment limits was implemented for the drugs purchased or paid for the state, local, and county governments, the board must report to the Assembly its recommendations regarding whether the board’s authority to set upper payment limits should be expanded statewide to all purchases and payer reimbursements.
The legislation also includes appeal and judicial rights for anyone aggrieved by a decision of the PDAB.
One reason for the phase-in of board authority starting with government drug purchases and payments was the concern in Maryland about a possible constitutional challenge after the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s 2017 anti-price-gouging drug legislation (HB 631) violated the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) of the US Constitution. Although the PDAB is designed specifically to prevail in a DCC challenge, the issue resurfaced during Maryland’s legislative session when the US Supreme Court declined to take up the 2017 case. There are a number of reasons the Supreme Court might not take up a case – including if there is no conflict in opinions among the federal Circuits Courts (which was the situation with anti-price-gouging law, there was only one case and one decision). NASHP and Maryland have documentation and legal analysis of why a PDAB with upper payment limit authority does not violate the DCC.
There may be an advantage to being the first state pursuing an upper payment limit for costly drugs to do so in a phased approach. Maryland’s board will build its analytic capacity to determine the benefit and calculation of the upper payment limit for certain drugs, which is important. The board can apply the process of determining if a specific drug should be reviewed for affordability and then determine whether or not the drug should be subject to a upper payment level and what it should be – even if there is not authority to apply the limit statewide during the first few years.
Using upper payment limits with government-purchased drugs before expanding to all payers may be an appropriate way to pilot the approach in Maryland. However, establishing a PDAB with limited authority and requiring state leadership approval to advance the primary mission of the board is a risk. Another phase-in approach discussed in Maryland before the DCC concerns were raised was to limit PDAB authority to set upper payment limits to a specific number of drugs.
NASHP Note: NASHP will closely follow Maryland’s experience in establishing the PDAB and will receive continued support from the state’s leadership for its mission to implement mechanisms to ensure necessary prescriptions are affordable. For more information, explore NASHP’s Center for Rx Drug Pricing.

New Medicaid Funding Could Help States Better Integrate Care for Children with Medical Complexity

April 15, 2019/in Policy Blogs Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, CHIP, CHIP, Chronic and Complex Populations, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Eligibility and Enrollment, EPSDT, Health Coverage and Access, Integrated Care for Children, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care /by Hannah Eichner and Kate Honsberger

Earlier this month, the Senate passed the Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019 (H.R. 1839), which contains funding mechanisms and reforms that allow states to improve care coordination for children enrolled in Medicaid. As of early this week, the bill was on the President’s desk awaiting his signature.
This legislation significantly gives states the option to establish health homes for children with medical complexity (CMC) to promote better care coordination. The concept of giving states this option was originally proposed in the Advancing Care for Exceptional (ACE) Kids Act and was debated in Congress for several years before it was passed as part of H.R. 1839.
Medicaid health homes (originally established under Section 2703 of the Affordable Care Act – ACA) provide targeted and coordinated care for patients with chronic conditions who are enrolled in Medicaid. The goal of health homes providers is to “integrate and coordinate all primary, acute, behavioral health, and long-term services and supports to treat the whole person.”
Medicaid health homes do not allow states to specifically limit enrollment in health homes by age, but through health home provider requirements states may limit who can provide the health home services (e.g., pediatric providers). Since this option has been available, state Medicaid agencies have used health homes to target and provide coordinated care to specific populations, such as children with behavioral health needs. In a departure from the previous health home requirements, this new health home option would allow states to specifically target children under age 21 with complex health care needs.
The new legislation contains provisions that will be important for states to consider:

Start date: States may submit Medicaid state plan amendments related to health homes for children with medical complexity beginning Oct. 1, 2022.
Enhanced federal match: To encourage uptake of this state option and to help with start-up costs, during the first two fiscal year quarters that a Medicaid state plan amendment is in effect, the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) for payments made to designated health homes will be increased by 15 percent, but cannot exceed 90 percent. This is a more limited federal match than health homes established by the ACA, which receive a 90 percent FMAP for the first eight quarters.
Target population: The legislation stipulates that enrollment in a health home program must be provided as an optional basis for children with medical complexity. It clearly defines eligibility for children younger than 21 with medical complexity as having:
- One or more chronic conditions that cumulatively affect three or more organ systems and severely reduces cognitive or physical functioning – such as the ability to eat, drink, or breathe independently – and that also requires the use of medication, durable medical equipment, therapy, surgery, or other treatments; or
- One life-limiting illness or rare pediatric disease, as defined in section 529(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Types of services:
- Services provided by health homes will include the six core health home services required under Section 2703 of the ACA: comprehensive care management, care coordination, health promotion, comprehensive transitional care, patient and family support, and referrals to community and social support services.
- Further, this new health home option for children with medical complexity must provide access to the full range of pediatric specialty and subspecialty medical services, including services from out-of-state providers if medically necessary.
Health home qualifications:
- Health home providers have traditionally included designated providers, teams of health professionals, and health teams.
- The legislation stipulates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) will establish standards for qualifying as a health home. The standards will include requirements related to: coordinating prompt and coordinated care among various types of providers, establishing a family-centered care plan, working in a culturally- and linguistically-appropriate manner, and coordinating care with out-of-state providers.
State reporting requirements: States must report to HHS information including: the number of children participating in the program, the nature and prevalence of the chronic conditions of enrollees, the type of delivery systems and payment models used in the program, quality measures used in the program, and health home provider characteristics.
State planning grants: Beginning on Oct. 1, 2022, HHS can award up to $5 million in planning grants to interested states.

The legislation also requires the HHS Secretary to issue guidance to state Medicaid agencies by October 2020 on best practices for using and coordinating care from out-of-state providers for children with medical complexity. States will be required to report on implementation of this guidance within their health home programs.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) will continue to monitor progress on this legislation and if signed into law, NASHP will follow its implementation and highlight potential issues for states as they pursue this new Medicaid option. For more information about state strategies to improve care to children with special health care needs, visit NASHP’s Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs Resource Page.

State Initiatives Using Purchasing Power to Achieve Drug Cost Containment

April 15, 2019/in Policy Reports Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Prescription Drug Pricing /by Jane Horvath

This report focuses on several state purchasing strategies designed to achieve concessions in negotiations with drug manufacturers and in other parts of the prescription drug supply chain. The highlighted strategies include intrastate actions, which combine state agencies’ purchases of drugs to improve their negotiating clout, and interstate activities, such as multi-state organizations that unite to purchase drugs for their Medicaid programs.
Read or download: State Initiatives Using Purchasing Power to Achieve Drug Cost Containment
Read or download a related report: Cross-Agency Strategies to Curb Health Care Costs: Leveraging State Purchasing Power This report highlights the unique approaches states across the country have taken to limit health care cost increases, ranging from limiting hospital rates increases to cross-agency collaboration to lower drug and health care costs.

Cross-Agency Strategies to Curb Health Care Costs: Leveraging State Purchasing Power

April 15, 2019/in Policy Reports Administrative Actions, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Making the Case for Action, Prescription Drug Pricing, State Rx Legislative Action /by Jane Horvath, Ellen Schneiter, Christina Cousart, Trish Riley and Maureen Hensley-Quinn

Rising health care costs are an intractable problem in the United States, but states, faced with balanced budget requirements and growing voter concern, aren’t waiting for a federal solution.

This report explores state initiatives to curb health care costs by:

Leveraging Medicare’s well-established reimbursement rates as reference prices for state employee plans to address rising health costs;
Harnessing collective buying power of state purchasers across agency and state lines to lower drug costs; and
Establishing state authority to limit hospital rate increases, promote cost transparency, and limit spending growth.

States are increasingly looking beyond individual agencies and programs to harness the significant potential of their collective buying power.
State dollars fund Medicaid, state employee health plans, health services in mental health and correctional facilities, and public hospitals, and coverage for university, municipal, and school employees. When acting together, state agencies exert considerable buying power in an increasingly consolidated health care system. This report highlights the new wave of state initiatives that leverage collective purchasing clout to lower the cost trajectory.
Read or download: Cross-Agency Strategies to Curb Health Care Costs: Leveraging State Purchasing Power

NASHP Insurance Marketplace Resources

April 8, 2019/in Policy District Of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Jersey Toolkits Eligibility and Enrollment, Featured Policy Home, Health Coverage and Access, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP Staff

State-based health insurance marketplaces (SBMs) have emerged as successful models in delivering health insurance to consumers. They consistently outperform other states that use the federal platform in areas of enrollment, affordability, and increased plan offerings and competition. Their flexible structure allows SBMs to focus marketing and outreach efforts and promote policies that generate more health coverage choices at lower costs. The resources below explore the SBM model and how recent state and federal actions are impacting state insurance markets.

Tools

SBM Performance

State-Based Health Insurance Marketplace Performance, June 30, 2020. This slideshow details data about current state-based marketplace models, enrollment trends, premium growth, and impacts of reinsurance.

State-based Marketplace Leaders Share their Success and Growth with Federal Leaders September 23, 2019 SBM executives came to Washington DC to share how they are succeeding, sustainable, and growing in number.

Slideshow: State Marketplaces Outperform the Federal Marketplace, April 1, 2019. This slideshows examines how state-based marketplaces outperform the federal marketplace model based on enrollment, affordability, and plan competition.

Chart: Individual Enrollment in Federal and State Health Insurance Marketplaces 2018-2019, April 1, 2019. This chart illustrates how the three marketplace models performed in every state between 2018 and 2019.

Blog: Is New Jersey’s Conversion to a State-based Insurance Exchange a Harbinger?, April 1, 2019. This blog explores why states like New Jersey are considering converting to a state-based marketplace model.

Blog: State-based Exchange Directors Share their Marketplace Success with Congress, March 11, 2019. This blog explores topics shared by marketplace executives with Congressional leaders during a series of meetings in Washington, DC.

State-based Marketplace Resource List, March 6, 2019. State-based marketplace (SBM) resources highlight strategies to support market stability and affordability, the 2019 enrollment period, and how state flexibility enables their success.

Blog: State-based Marketplaces Open for Business, Dec. 19, 2018. This blog describes how SBMs are still at work, even in light of a federal district court ruling striking down aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Includes information on enrollment deadlines for each state.

Blog: How Massachusetts SHOP-ed for a New Small Group Marketplace, May 1, 2017. This blog describes how Massachusetts leveraged Washington, DC’s marketplace technology to create a joint platform for its Small business Health Options Program (SHOP).

Transitioning to an SBM

New Jersey and Pennsylvania Approve Legislation to Launch State-Based Insurance Marketplaces July 9, 2019 This blog recaps recently enacted legislation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to transition the states to the SBM model.

Blog: So You Want to Build a State-based Marketplace? Here’s How! — Advice from Marketplace Leaders, May 21, 2019. This blog highlights advice from state-based marketplace (SBM) leaders about how to transition to the SBM model.

Webinar: So You Want to Build a State-based Marketplace? Here’s How! May 10, 2019. During this webinar, state-based marketplace (SBM) leaders from Idaho, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington, DC discuss what states should know if they’re considering transition to the SBM model.

Q&A Nevada’s Insurance Director Talks about Transitioning to a State-based Marketplace and Saving Millions, April 24, 2018. Q & A with Heather Korbulic, Executive Director of Nevada’s Marketplace, about the decisions driving Nevada’s conversion to the SBM model.

Issue Brief: Building a More Efficient Marketplace: Lessons from DC Health Link’s Experience with Open Source Code, March 21, 2016. Issue brief detailing the savings and efficiencies generated from Washington DC’s conversion to an open source system for its marketplace.

Federal Impact on Markets

State Officials Fear Final Public Charge Rule Could Deter Health Coverage Enrollment September 10, 2019 This blog reviews the Administration’s recently enacted “public charge” rule and how the rule may impact enrollment in coverage programs including Medicaid, CHIP and health insurance marketplaces.

Changes to Poverty Measure Could Disqualify Thousands from State and Federal Programs June 17, 2019 This blog examines a proposal issued by the Office of Management and Budget that could impact the annual poverty measure used to assess eligibility for several state and federal programs.

Blog: Annual Federal Insurance Rule Includes Proposals to Address Prescription Drug Cost, Feb. 11, 2019. This blog details the ways the 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters proposes to address prescription drug costs through changes in benefit requirements and limits on coupons for prescription drugs.

Chart: Deadline Looms for State Comments on Fed’s Latest Insurance Rules, Jan. 29, 2019. This chart contains details of all the federal changes to insurance market regulations proposed under the 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters.

Blog: New Federal Health Reimbursement Proposal Adds New Variables to State Health Insurance Markets, November 6, 2018. This blog describes how proposed regulations grant additional flexibility over the administration of Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs).

Blog: Administration Proposes Significant Policy Changes for State Insurance Markets through New 1332 Waiver Guidance, Oct. 23, 2018. This blog explains how new federal guidance changes the requirements for states under section 1332 State Relief and Empowerment Waivers.

Blog: Lower Cost, Short-Term Insurance Plans Approved, but at What Cost to State Markets and Consumers, Aug. 7, 2018. This blog summarizes changes to federal regulations governing short-term limited duration insurance plans, state actions to regulate these plans, and what implications these changes may have for states’ markets.

Blog: The New Association Health Plan Rule: What Are the Issues and Options for States, June 26, 2018. This blog details all the changes made under a new federal rule regulating association health plans (AHPs)

Blog: New Insurance Rules Allow States to Revise Marketplace Coverage as Rate-Filing Deadlines Near, April 17, 2018. This blog provides a detailed summary of changes made by the 2019 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, the federal rule governing health insurance in 2019.

Blog: How Elimination of Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments Changed Consumer Enrollment in State-based Marketplaces, March 20, 2018. This blog provides an update on how state regulators adjusted their insurance markets in response to the federal decision to eliminate funding for the cost-sharing reduction program. An accompanying chart documents resulting shifts in enrollment by metal level in state-based marketplace states.

SBM Responses to Federal Actions
Blog: State-based Exchange Directors Share their Marketplace Success with Congress, March 11, 2019. This blog explores topics shared by SBM executives with Congressional leaders during a series of meetings in Washington, DC.

Letter: State Exchange Leaders Express Concern about Potential Rule Changes, February 19, 2019. Letter from 13 SBM executives to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding changes proposed under the 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters.

Letter: Twelve State-based Exchanges Outline Strategies to Stabilize Individual Market, August 29, 2018. Letter from 12 SBM executives to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee detailing consensus strategies to bring stability to the individual insurance market.
Letter: State-based Marketplace Directors Ask Senate Leaders to Support a Reinsurance Program, February 6, 2018. Letter from 10 SBM executives to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to support Congressional efforts to stabilize insurance markets.

How States Stabilize Markets

Q&A: How Maryland Uses Multiple Policy Levers to Improve Health Coverage, Affordability, and Access October 14, 2019. Maryland’s Health Insurance Marketplace Executive Director discusses how reinsurance and a new easy enrollment program will help spread affordable coverage in the state.

How Washington State Is Reducing Costs and Improving Coverage Value – A Q&A with its Health Benefit Exchange CEO August 5, 2019 In this interview, Washington’s marketplace CEO discusses plans for implementation of Washington’s public option and standard benefit design.

How California Is Moving the Needle on Coverage and Costs: An Interview with Covered California Leaders July 29, 2019. In this interview, officials from Covered California talk about the implementation of California’s new law to expand health insurance subsidies and reinstate the individual mandate.

Webinar and Blog: State Reinsurance Programs Lower Premiums and Stabilize Markets — Oregon and Maryland Show How, Dec. 11, 2018. This blog describes early results from Maryland and Oregon’s implementation of a reinsurance program for their individual insurance market. Additional details are shared in a webinar linked in this blog.

Blog: Health Coverage and Human Service Program Eligibility: Considerations for States Weighing Systems Integration, Oct. 2, 2018. This blog describes various policy considerations for states that are interested in implementing more integrated eligibility systems for their health and human services programs.

Blog: How State Policymakers Spent Their Summer: Stabilizing Their Insurance Markets, Sept. 11, 2018. This blog provides a round-up of new state legislation passed to implement an individual mandate and to regulate short-term insurance and association health plans.

Blog: #NASHPCONF18: Policymakers Share Their Approaches to Stabilize State Individual Insurance Markets, Aug. 28, 2018. This blog recaps a NASHP conference panel with state officials highlighting strategies used to stabilize markets and identify lingering challenges to insurance markets’ affordability and choice.

Blog: #NASHPCONF18: State Policymakers Share Views on Evolving Individual Insurance Markets, Aug. 21, 2018. During NASHP’s 31st Annual State Health Policy Conference, experts and state officials assessed the dramatic sea changes that recent federal action has imposed on their individual health insurance markets, what they are doing to stabilize them, and what the future holds.

Webinar and Blog: Ministry, Association, and Short-Term Health Insurance Plans – What’s a State to Do? May 29, 2018. During this webinar, experts reviewed major trends expected for insurance markets, and state actions and tools to encourage stability and consumer protections in the midst of these changes.

Blog: States Face Short Deadlines to Address the Risks of Short-term Insurance Plans, May 1, 2018. This blog reviews options for state regulation of short-term insurance plans in light of proposed federal rules to expand their availability.

Q&A with Pennsylvania’s Insurance Chief: Jessica Altman Explores the Evolving Role of Insurance Coverage, April 10, 2018. Altman speaks with NASHP about the evolving role of health insurance coverage in state and national politics.

Webinar: How Would a State Individual Insurance Mandate Work? Feb. 7, 2018. This webinar dives deep into Massachusetts’ individual mandate and a new proposal in Maryland to create an auto-enrollment process for individuals through its insurance marketplaces.

Webinar: Prohibiting Discrimination under the Affordable Care Act—State and Federal Roles and Responsibilities, April 18, 2016. This webinar examines the state role in prohibiting discrimination in health insurance coverage per requirements issued under the Affordable Care Act including the impacts of nondiscrimination requirements on insurance markets.