Insurance companies had to spend a lot of money adapting to Obamacare’s botched rollout. And unless the White House intervenes, the law could penalize them for doing it.
Problems with HealthCare.gov — and the administration’s work-arounds — saddled insurance companies with unexpected logistical costs. Yet the Affordable Care Act also caps insurers’ administrative spending, forcing them to pay rebates if their overhead is too high.
Insurers will ask the White House for some relief from those rules, an industry source said, in light of the unexpected costs they had to shoulder because of HealthCare.gov.
The request is still preliminary. Insurers haven’t yet tried to estimate how much the website’s problems cost them, mostly because they’re still focused on trying to get people in the door and to work through the remaining kinks in the system.
But the core argument is already there: Insurers don’t think it’s fair to penalize them for expenses they incurred solely because of the government’s broken website or the administration’s last-minute policy changes.
Insurers can afford the extra logistical costs, to be sure. But they’re being saddled with unexpected costs to implement a law that caps their administrative costs. The Affordable Care Act says individual policies can spend only 20 percent of their premiums on overhead and profit. If they spend more, they have to rebate the difference to their customers.
Some plans worry they’ll go over the limit this year because of the extra administrative costs the administration has dumped on them since October.
And although they haven’t put a dollar estimate on it yet, they’re confident this will be rather expensive for them once it’s all said and done.
Because HealthCare.gov didn’t work when it launched in October, insurers set up new work-arounds to enroll people directly. They spent — and are still spending — a lot of money to straighten out flawed enrollment files sent to them from HealthCare.gov. Last-minute changes in the implementation — encouraging insurers to un-cancel certain policies, giving consumers more time to pay their premiums, etc. — have also come with added administrative costs.
Cutting insurers some slack on the spending caps might be an easy way for the White House to mend its frayed relationship with the industry. Although insurers and the White House have the same goals — get people, especially healthy people, enrolled through the law’s new marketplaces — insurers have been consistently frustrated by policy changes that squeeze them to compensate for the website’s woes.
On the other hand, though, the White House would be softening a part of the health care law that it has tried hard to sell politically. President Obama has highlighted the rebates from insurers — companies issued some $500 million in rebates last year — as a popular development people might not recognize is a result of Obamacare.
What We're Following See More »
"A federal appeals court's decision that declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau an arm of the White House relies on a novel interpretation of the constitution's separation of powers clause that could have broader effects on how other regulators" like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."
Twitter bots, "automated social media accounts that interact with other users," accounted for a large part of the online discussion during the first presidential debate. Bots made up 22 percent of conversation about Hillary Clinton on the social media platform, and a whopping one third of Twitter conversation about Donald Trump.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the nonprofit that published the Panama Papers earlier this year, is being spun off from its parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity. According to a statement, "CPI’s Board of Directors has decided that enabling the ICIJ to chart its own course will help both journalistic teams build on the massive impact they have had as one organization."
According to a new report, the Environmental Protection Agency waited too long before informing the residents of Flint, Mich. that their water was contaminated with lead. Written by the EPA's inspector general, it places blame squarely at the foot of the agency itself, saying it had enough information by June 2015 to issue an emergency order. However, the order wasn't issued until the end of January 2016.