Limit short-term health plans to a...short term? Buyers and sellers speak out

Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up! 

My last post considered a rule proposed by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor to restore a three-month term limit on so-called Short Term, Limited Duration (STLD) health plans. Those plans are currently available for year-long terms in some states, renewable for up to three years.

My main point was that if the removal of the ACA’s original income cap on subsidies by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act, is not further extended, STLD plans will once again be the only viable option as of 2026 for some modestly affluent non-elderly people who lack access to employer-sponsored or other insurance. For that reason, I suggested that the proposed rule automatically sunset if the income cap on subsidies returns.

To review briefly: STLD plans are not regulated as insurance and not compliant with ACA rules for individual health plans. They are medically underwritten, do not have to cover the ACA’s Essential Health Benefits (drug and mental health benefits are often excluded or very limited), are not subject to the balance billing protection provided by the No Surprises Act, and generally cap benefits at $1 million or $2 million. Some but not all STLD plans have provider networks (and so some balance billing protection) and annual out-of-pocket caps for covered benefits.

For further perspective I turned to the comments submitted so far in response to the proposed rule. There are just 43, from a mix of consumers and brokers (as opposed to more than 25,000 for the FDA’s proposed ban on most noncompete agreements). All, perhaps not surprisingly, ask that the allowable STLD term not be shortened as proposed.

A caveat about curtailing short-term limited duration health plans

 Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up! 

It’s generally a good thing when the Biden administration repeals a Trump-era administrative rule. Under current ACA marketplace conditions, a rule proposed by HHS, Treasury and the Department of Labor to restore a three-month term limit on so-called Short Term, Limited Duration (STLD) health plans is a good thing. In a rule finalized in August 2018, the Trump administration extended the allowable duration of such plans to a year, renewable for up to three years, creating an alternative market to the ACA-compliant individual market.

STLD plans by legal definition are not insurance and not subject to regulation by the ACA, HIPAA, the No Surprises Act, or the law mandating parity between physical and mental health coverage (MHPAEA). STLD plans are medically underwritten, meaning that applicants with pre-existing conditions can be charged more, denied coverage altogether, or offered coverage with the pre-existing condition excluded. These plans do not have to cover the ACA’s Essential Health Benefits and often exclude drug coverage and mental health care. They often have no provider network - -instead, they set their own rates in payment to medical providers and thus leave enrollees subject to extensive balance billing — which is still possible, as these plans are not subject to the No Surprises Act, which began protecting people in ACA-compliant plans in 2022. (In many markets, however, United HealthCare does offer STLD plans that have a provider network.)

For the Trump administration, which inherited Republicans’ dead-end opposition to and demonization of everything ACA, STLD plans represented a kind of ideal, harking back to the Shangri-la of the pre-ACA individual market, in which plans without restrictive provider networks (and with coverage limitations similar to those of STLD plans) cost lucky, healthy enrollees considerably less than unsubsidized ACA-compliant plans would later cost. Seema Verma, Trump’s CMS director, lionized “choice” — a market teeming with lightly regulated options offering very partial coverage — and that is what the Trump administration created. Verma even floated ACA “waiver concepts” inviting the states to seek approval for providing federal subsidies for ACA-noncompliant plans.

Part D party! The Biden administration boosts a boast

Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up! 

"The IRA saved me $103 in Part D OOP!"

The Biden administration is rightly broadcasting the out-of-pocket savings that the Inflation Reduction Act will yield to enrollees in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. That said, the headline claim in the White House fact sheet turned my head:

New data shows nearly 19 million seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries will save an estimated $400 per year in prescription drug costs because of President Biden’s out-of-pocket spending cap

Thanks to President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs at the pharmacy will be capped at $2,000 per year for Medicare Part D enrollees starting in 2025.  Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released data showing that 18.7 million (or 1 in 3) seniors and people with disabilities who are enrolled in Part D plans will save, on average, $400 per year when the $2,000 cap and other Inflation Reduction Act provisions go into effect in 2025. And some enrollees will save even more: 1.9 million enrollees with the highest drug costs will save an average of $2,500 per year starting in 2025. Overall, the law’s Part D benefits provisions will reduce enrollee out-of-pocket spending by about $7.4 billion annually.

Is there a pithy way to say that averages smooth out a lot of variation? Savings from the IRA’s changes to Part D are (appropriately) weighted toward a few million enrollees with really heavy out-of-pocket exposure.