Biden administration to ACA enrollment assistors: Please credit yourselves

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.

Please add my 13-digit ID

CMS is apparently working to redress the Trump administration’s attack on the effectiveness of the nonprofit enrollment assistors chartered by the ACA and partly funded by the federal government.

Earlier this week CMS sent this memo to enrollment assistors:

The memo spells out the rationale for ensuring that navigators, CACs and EAP, who have no direct financial incentive to credit themselves on marketplace enrollments they facilitate, do so anyway:

Including your assister ID will help the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to better understand the support that the assister community provides and continue to improve the consumer experience….

Understanding your reach as an assister is important to enhancing the support CMS provides you and the consumers you assist.

There is a long history behind this exhortation.

How the Trump administration handled the ACA marketplace, Part 3: Regulation

 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.

This post is Part 3 of an assessment of Trump administration policy with respect to the ACA, most specifically the ACA marketplace. Part 1 overviewed the administration’s early encouragement of state reinsurance programs, Trump’s cutoff of direct reimbursement of insurers for Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies, and the defunding of the Navigator enrollment assister program, paired with considerable support for health insurance brokers.

Part 2 reviewed the effective repeal of the individual mandate penalty, paired with regulations designed to boost an alternative market of ACA-noncompliant plans. Here, we’ll look at how Seema Verma’s CMS loosened rules for insurers and tightened them for marketplace applicants.

How the Trump administration handled the ACA marketplace, Part 1

 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.

In the wake of Trump’s vow to repeal the ACA if elected, Larry Levitt, Kaiser Family Foundation, outlines the former president’s past and purported future healthcare agenda.

One of Trump’s biggest political failures as president was his inability to persuade Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, the Trump administration did make significant changes to the ACA, including repealing the individual mandate penalty, reducing federal funding for consumer assistance (navigators) by 84% and outreach by 90%, and expanding short-term insurance plans that can exclude coverage of preexisting conditions. And, the Trump administration supported an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit to overturn the ACA.

In one of the stranger policy twists, the Trump administration ended payments to ACA insurers to compensate them for a requirement to provide reduced cost sharing for low-income patients. At the time, Trump said this would cause Obamacare to be “dead” and “gone.” But, insurers responded by increasing premiums, which in turn increased federal premium subsidies and costs to the federal government, likely strengthening the ACA.

In the current campaign, Trump has vowed several times to try again to repeal and replace the ACA, saying he would create a plan with “much better health care.”

Trump certainly meant harm to the ACA. His comments in the wake of abruptly cutting off direct reimbursement of insurers for the value of Cost Sharing Reduction, cited by Levitt above, show his intent, as does his pressure on Republicans in Congress to pass legislation gutting its core programs. Should Trump regain the presidency, there is no question that he will pursue the agenda that Levitt outlines in his conclusion, including the ACA-related parts:

Trump’s record as president from 2017 to 2021, combined with recent comments on the campaign trail, suggest he would pursue policies to weaken the ACA, reduce federal spending on Medicaid, restrict access to abortion and family planning, and scale back benefits for immigrants if reelected as president in 2024.

Moreover, should Trump regain the presidency, he would lead a Republican party even more subservient to his will than in his first term. A Republican Congress would almost surely roll back the ACA Medicaid expansion and impose sharp spending caps on surviving Medicaid programs, as well as deregulating and largely defunding the ACA marketplace, as failed Republican legislation aimed to do in 2017. Should Democrats control one or both houses of Congress, an HHS Department filled with MAGA partisans, in line with plans currently being laid by well-funded right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation to root out technocratic expertise and install Trump loyalists at every level in all federal departments, would doubtless pull out all stops to undermine the marketplace and reduce Medicaid enrollments.

In Trump’s first administration, his appointments to HHS and CMS also were hostile to the structure of the ACA marketplace and the Medicaid expansion. Most notably, CMS administrator Seema Verma encouraged states to impose work requirements on “non-disabled, working age Medicaid enrollees — with some success, although the measures were largely checked by the courts. She also pushed states to conduct more frequent income and eligibility checks on Medicaid enrollees, encouraging the kind of procedural disenrollments (often of people who never received demands for information) now plaguing the post-pandemic Medicaid unwinding. '

But Verma and HHS Secretaries Tom Price and Alex Azar were also more constrained by conventional political incentives and the needs of corporate, state and individual constituents than their successors in a second Trump administration would likely be. The administration’s record with respect to ACA marketplace administration was mixed. Some measures harmed product quality and enrollment; some measures boosted enrollment and retention.

Will Medicaid's "great unwinding" when the PHE ends trigger a "great uninsuring"?

Subscribe (free) to xpostfactoid

During the pandemic, from February 2020 to May 2022, Medicaid enrollment increased by 18 million, or 29%, according to administrative data that CMS collects from states. That's mainly because of a moratorium on disenrollments that began in March 2020 and has yet to end. The moratorium will end when the federal government declares an end to the  Public Health Emergency, which will happen in mid-January 2023 at the earliest (the PHE has been extended repeatedly in 3-month increments). 

As noted in my last post, the disruption that may be triggered by the resumption of state "redeterminations" of Medicaid enrollees' eligibility, and subsequent disenrollment of some, is a focus of considerable angst -- and preparations, in states where Medicaid personnel are committed to keeping as many people insured as possible, to proceed with due deliberation and compassion. The Urban Institute has estimated that 15 million people may be disenrolled over the course of a year, the time period that CMS has asked states to devote to clearing the "redetermination" backlog. The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates somewhat more modest losses, in a range from 5.3 million to 14.2 million.

This week the Census Bureau released its annual report on health insurance coverage in the United States. Based on the annual supplement to the Current Population Survey, the report shows a more modest increase in Medicaid enrollment from 2020 to 2021 -- 0.9% -- than CMS's administrative data would indicate.  According to CMS, Medicaid and CHIP enrollment increased by 6.6 million from December 2020 to December 2021. That's about 2% of the population.

The Census Bureau also released a second report, spotlighting health insurance changes over two years, and based on the American Community Survey. which interviews people throughout the year about their current insurance status (the CPS, conducted early in the year, asks respondents if they were insured at any point in the past year).  The ACS also shows a gap between Medicaid enrollment gains as reflected in administrative data compared to the survey data. According to the report, the percentage of the population insured by Medicaid increased by 1.3% over two years, from 2019 to 2021 (based, again, on surveys conducted throughout each year). The administrative data records an increase of 11.7 million enrollees from June 2019 to June 2021. That's about 3.5% of the population.

An analysis of the ACS data by KFF attempts to explain this gap. The explanation suggests to me that the disenrollments that will begin at the end of the PHE may not be as disruptive as "15 million disenrolled" might indicate -- at least in states that work in good faith and with due diligence to establish contact with all enrollees, accurately determine their status, and help them consider their options.  My emphasis via yellow highlight below (the bolded subhead is in the original):

We're in Cassidy-Collinsville, Chapter 2

Last March, Peter Suderman wrote a clever column claiming that Republican changes to the ACA -- repeal of the individual mandate, creation of a parallel ACA-noncompliant individual market -- were achieving the goals of the ACA repeal/replace bills. I noted the missing piece there: defunding the ACA, in particular the Medicaid expansion and Medicaid more generally. That was the "hot-beating heart" of the failed Republican repeal bills. Instead of AHCA- light, I suggested:

In the aftermath of the 2017 assault, the ACA resembles not so much a system established by a mainstream Republican repeal-and-replace bill as it does the kind of compromise that might have emerged from a negotiation over the Cassidy-Collins bill introduced in January 2017, if negotiation over such a plan had been possible (it wasn't, because no more than a handful of Republicans were interested in the bill).

Do CMS's new "waiver concepts" violate even the new waiver guidance?

When HHS and the Treasury first took a meat axe to the so-called "guardrails" to ACA Section 1332 innovation waivers in late October, I argued that the guardrails were not down entirely.

Specifically, even as CMS Administrator Seema Verma actively encouraged proposals that would allow premium subsidies to be applied to short-term or other ACA-noncompliant plans, a state would still have to use an ACA-compliant plan, or something very like it with guaranteed issue, to set the benchmark by which subsidies are calculated.

That's the case (I think) in spite of -- or maybe because of -- the shift in the new guidance from requiring waiver proposals to cover as many people as comprehensively as the ACA to merely making comparably affordable and comprehensive coverage available to as many people. Here's the key language:

The Departments may consider these guardrails met if access to coverage that is as affordable and comprehensive as coverage forecasted to have been available in the absence of the waiver is projected to be available to a comparable number of people under the waiver.

If Seema Verma bans silver loading, how many ACA marketplace enrollees will suffer?

A few weeks ago, using ACA marketplace enrollment data available for Maryland, I calculated that about 20% of Maryland marketplace enrollees would lose valuable discounts in gold and bronze plans if federal reimbursement to insurers for Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies were restored by Congress, after being cut off by Trump last fall.

Early this month, CMS published enrollment data for all states, with more detail (as always) for the 39 states using the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov, which account for just under three quarters of all enrollment. And while Congress balked at restoring CSR funding for 2019, CMS administrator Seema Verma is now intimating that CMS may ban "silver loading," the pricing practice that produced this year's discounts in bronze and gold plans. With the full enrollment data for HealthCare.gov, we can now calculate roughly how many people would lose access to the kind of de facto subsidy enhancements that emerged this year.

Christmas for ACA advocates

Healthcare Twitter was on edge today, as final open enrollment figures for HealthCare.gov were running a day late:

Maybe no one will notice how good the numbers are if they’re dumped on the Friday before Christmas...

— Lori Lodes (@loril) December 21, 2017

That triggered a bout of galloping Twitter procrastination on my part:

Twas the Friday before Christmas
and atop CMS
a late enrollment surge
was causing distress.

MEWAs were hung
on the chimney with care,
and Santa'd made the mandate
vanish in thin air.

And Seema in her kerchief,
and Price in his cap,
had worked to bend enrollment
until it would snap.

When all of a sudden I heard such a clatter
I sprang to my screen to see what was the matter.