The latest criticism of Obamacare has centered on the “navigator” organizations charged with helping Americans find health insurance coverage under the law. The Affordable Care Act tasks navigators with educating the public about health reform, distributing “fair and impartial” information about insurance plans, and providing enrollment assistance in some instances. In exchange for performing these duties, navigator organizations receive federal grants; $67 million was distributed to 105 nonprofits and community-based organizations just last month.
Republican critics have focused recently on whether these counselors pose a threat to privacy. “Americans will detail their very personal health and financial information to these individuals,” according to an Aug. 15 release from the GOP-led House Energy and Commerce Committee. “The sheer volume of personal information collected by navigators raises serious privacy concerns.” Thirteen Republican state attorneys general wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius expressing similar misgivings.
But the navigator program has a precedent, one that suggests the concerns may be overblown: the State Health Insurance Assistance Program, which was enacted through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 to offer free counseling to Medicare beneficiaries. SHIP counselors were the model for Obamacare’s navigators. “The notion that this is some unheard of “¦ incursion into people’s lives is about as far from reality as it could be,” says Sara Rosenbaum, a professor at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services. “This is exactly what Medicare SHIPs do all the time.”
SHIP staff members played a key outreach role after Congress passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. The legislation introduced prescription-drug benefits — Part D, which was a complicated addition to the coverage offered under Medicare available through enrollment in private plans. In the spring of 2005, just half a year before open enrollment began, 66 percent of seniors polled by the Kaiser Family Foundation said they didn’t think they had enough information to understand how the benefit would affect them. Enter SHIPs.
“With Part D, they were incredibly important,” said Laura Summer, a senior research scholar at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. In 2008, Summer coauthored a report on how the early Part D rollout went, based on the findings of a survey of 660 counselors, program managers, and others who worked with beneficiaries. “The availability of one-on-one counseling, including help from the State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) counselors, was cited most commonly in response to an open-ended question regarding aspects of the program that have been particularly helpful for Part D beneficiaries,” she and her colleagues wrote.
SHIP counselors had access to information to determine whether individuals might qualify for Part D’s low-income subsidy, as well as certain personal health information that helped them advise on plan selection. National Journal interviewed a number of people who studied the rollout of Medicare Part D, none of whom recalled the kind of concern over privacy voiced by today’s opponents of Obamacare. Newspaper reports and congressional transcripts from 2005 to 2007 also suggest that personal information was not a key worry during the early days of Part D enrollment, although there was a broader discussion taking place in Congress over how to respect patient privacy while modernizing health-information technology.
Any new health care program is ripe for fraud. Part D was, and the Affordable Care Act is likely to be, too. Bonnie Burns, a policy specialist with California Health Advocates, a Medicare advocacy nonprofit, recalls the scam artists who have cropped up as the Medicare program evolved over the years. “Every single time there’s any change in Medicare, Medicare beneficiaries get flooded with these mailings that say, “˜Your health care is changing, Congress has done X, Y, Z.’ And those are attempts to reach Medicare beneficiaries to sell them something,” Burns says. But she’s not aware of any instances of SHIP counselors committing fraud in California in the more than two decades she’s been involved with Medicare counseling.
HHS has promised that navigators, who will be required to complete 20 hours of training, will be instructed on privacy and security standards. The GOP state attorneys general counter that the government’s privacy safeguards are “vague” and “will result in improperly screened or inadequately trained personnel” who will be “more prone to misappropriate — accidentally or intentionally — the private data of consumers.”
But Larry Kocot, who was a senior adviser to the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during the Part D rollout and was heavily involved in its launch, says such assistance should be viewed as a case of risk versus reward. Part D showed how important in-person counseling is when explaining a complex new health care law. “With appropriate selection, safeguards, and monitoring,” Kocot says, “the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”
The Obama administration faces perhaps an even more daunting challenge than the Bush administration did during Part D’s early days. Half of Americans say they don’t have enough information about the Affordable Care Act to understand how it will affect them and their family, according to Kaiser’s August health tracking poll. Open enrollment begins in three weeks. The population the government is seeking to get covered is more diverse than the Part D constituency and may never have had insurance before — which is why counseling will be paramount. Concerns over security should be taken seriously and monitored. But the Part D precedent suggests that navigators can play an important role.
- 1 Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination, But Then What?
- 2 Bernie Sanders Is a Loud, Stubborn Socialist. Republicans Like Him Anyway.
- 3 Why Gun Control Can’t Eliminate Gun Violence
- 4 Few Privacy Limitations Exist on How Police Use Drones
- 5 How Politics Breaks Our Brains, and How We Can Put Them Back Together
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”