Showing posts with label enrollment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label enrollment. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Insurers: 80-90% of ObamaCare enrollees are paying their premiums, not 67% like that House committee said

Insurers:80-90%ofObamaCareenrolleesarepayingtheir

Insurers: 80-90% of ObamaCare enrollees are paying their premiums, not 67% like that House committee said

posted at 12:41 pm on May 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

If you read this post last week, you already know what accounts for the discrepancy. The committee took a snapshot on April 15th of new enrollees who hadn’t paid their first premium yet and found a payment rate of just 67 percent, well below the 80 percent figure that had been kicked around for months in the media. One minor problem, though: Because enrollment ended just a few weeks before, on March 31st, the snapshot on April 15th included people who had signed up just before the deadline but hadn’t even received their first bill from the insurance company yet. There are a lot of people like that out there; remember, there was an enormous spike in sign-ups in the days leading up to 3/31 as people tried to get coverage before the door was shut. Long story short, not all of the 33 percent who hadn’t paid yet on 4/15 were deadbeats past their due date. A great many of them were prepared to pay on time but were simply waiting for the bill to come due. Which means, as feared, the big “67 percent” bombshell just blew up in the committee’s face.

But wait, you say. The committee’s numbers were based on information they got from insurers. How can insurers now be claiming 80-90 percent payment when they told the committee it was 67 percent? Simple, says National Journal:

But this week, in written testimony to the same committee, insurers say the 67 percent figure was premature—and that they warned the committee not to draw sweeping conclusions from the information it requested

Wellpoint, the largest insurer in the Obamacare exchanges, said the payment rate is closer to 90 percent among people who reached their first payment deadline. The company has given investors the same estimate.

Health Care Service Corp., which administers Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in several states, told the committee the same thing: Of plans that have reached their payment deadlines, about 80 percent to 90 percent are paid enrollments…

“As outlined in our prior submissions to the Subcommittee, these are dynamic figures and do not reflect final enrollment numbers, as some enrollees have not yet reached their payment,” Aetna said in written testimony for a Wednesday hearing on the health care law and the insurance industry.

The committee did mention in its press release announcing the 67 percent figure that they’d be updating their numbers on May 20 because “many insurers have reported that individuals will still have time to pay their first month’s premium.” But if they had reason to believe that insurers would end up meeting expectations — i.e. 80 percent payment or higher — when all is said and done, why put out a release touting the lower number in the first place? Just wait a few weeks until the final numbers are in and issue a release then.

Two theories for why the committee rushed this out. Theory one: Stupidity. If and when the final payment numbers are released and it’s confirmed that 10-20 percent of new enrollees, a.k.a. 800,000 to 1.6 million people, will be tossed from the rolls, the White House now has some handy spin. “Once again Republicans underestimated ObamaCare,” they’ll say. “They thought we’d top out at 67 percent payment and we made it to 80 percent. Another victory!” Always a bad idea to lower expectations for your opponent. Theory two: Cynicism. Maybe the committee suspects (correctly) that most people don’t follow the news consistently but get it in bits and pieces at irregular times, especially when it comes to a subject as complex and long-running as ObamaCare. As such, they may have decided to float the 67 percent figure knowing/assuming it was bogus but confident that some low-information voters would notice it and conclude that O-Care was underperforming in yet another metric. Some of those voters will miss today’s news and the White House crowing to come about the correct figure and remain convinced that fully a third of new enrollees haven’t paid.

Which theory is correct? While you ponder that, via the Standard, here’s a reminder that there are still plenty of bad metrics in ObamaCare worth highlighting.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Carney: We dispute the GOP’s paid enrollment numbers for ObamaCare, and no, we don’t have any numbers of our own

Carney:WedisputetheGOP’spaidenrollmentnumbers

Carney: We dispute the GOP’s paid enrollment numbers for ObamaCare, and no, we don’t have any numbers of our own

posted at 4:21 pm on May 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Have a laugh at the headline but there’s a fair critique hidden in his shpiel about that bombshell 67 percent figure that was dropped by the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday. I already gave you one potential flaw in the Committee’s analysis in my post on that — namely, it may be that populous states like California and New York, which operate their own independent state exchanges, are seeing higher rates of payment among enrollees. That data wasn’t included in the Committee’s analysis because they looked only at the federal exchange. If a big state like California, say, is seeing an 85 percent payment rate, that’s going to drag the total national payment rate up from 67 percent. And in fact, according to a report in March, that’s exactly what California’s seeing — 85 percent. That’s red flag number one.

Red flag number two is Carney’s point here about the surge in enrollment right before the deadline. Here’s Peter Suderman, making the same argument:

April 15 [the as-of date used by the Committee] is just too early to measure anything close to a final payment rate. A huge portion of Obamacare exchange sign ups came in the last few days of open enrollment, for coverage that doesn’t begin until the first day of May. More people signed up later in the month, in the law’s special open enrollment period, and in some cases their coverage won’t start until June. Since the first payments aren’t due until the first day coverage starts, or even as long as 10 days after, that means that lots of people who have signed up still have time to pay. The deadline hasn’t arrived yet. And one thing the end of March sign up spike revealed is that when it comes to health insurance under Obamacare, lots of people wait until the very last minute to take action.

In other words, the fact that 33 percent hadn’t paid as of April 15th doesn’t mean that most of them are deadbeats. What it could mean, given the huge spike in sign-ups in late March, is that a bunch of them simply hadn’t received their first bill yet or were waiting to pay their first bill during the second half of April. They’re not late in paying, they simply haven’t cut the check yet. That may explain the discrepancy between the shocking 67 percent payment rate detected by the Committee and the 80 percent payment rate that insurers have been whispering about for months. Maybe the 13 percent difference is just people who signed up on March 31st and were planning to pay on, say, April 20th. They wouldn’t show up in the Committee data, which ended on April 15th, but they’re valid enrollees nonetheless. For what it’s worth, WellPoint, a major insurer, says the payment rate among its customers is in the ballpark of 90 percent. Hmmmm.

If this is what’s happening, why would the Committee float a bombshell number that may very well turn out to be wrong? Could be it’s just their way of planting an extra seed of doubt in the public’s mind about O-Care: Even if the 67 percent figure is incorrect, it’ll stick in some voters’ minds. Seems awfully stupid, though, to give the White House a chance to say “I told you so” if the final payment rate ends up being much higher. By lowering public expectations to 67 percent, now the White House can spin an 80 percent rate as a “success” rather than the PR black eye that it is. (Twenty percent nonpayment would mean more than a million people would be tossed from the rolls.) I hope this doesn’t blow up in the Committee’s face.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat8:01

Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on April 11, 2014 by Allahpundit

There’s a brute test of a policy: If you knew then what you know now, would you do it? I will never forget a conversation in 2006 or thereabouts with a passionate and eloquent supporter of the decision to go into Iraq. We had been having this conversation for years, he a stalwart who would highlight every optimistic sign, every good glimmering. He argued always for the rightness of the administration’s decision. I would share my disquiet, my doubts, finally my skepticism. One night over dinner I asked him, in passing, “If we had it to do over again, should we have gone in? would you support it?”

And he said, “Of course not!”

Which told me everything.

There are very, very few Democrats who would do ObamaCare over again. Some would do something different, but they wouldn’t do this. The cost of the blunder has been too high in terms of policy and politics.

***

During the darkest days of the website meltdown, Obama made it clear to those who asked that it was crucial for him not to fire any high-ranking administration officials. Sebelius and McDonough both reasonably feared they would be shown the door.

Numerous business executives, even those who wish Obama well, criticized Obama publicly and privately for failing to “hold someone accountable” and using the power of a bureaucratic beheading to demonstrate his fury. Whether this is a sign of strength or weakness, it is characteristically Obama…

In ways they’ve never discussed before, senior administration officials now admit they feared late last fall that the entire law might collapse under the weight of Democratic defections and aggressive Republican calls for repeal.

***

Sebelius brought two main assets to her job. She had experience regulating insurers and, as a successful Democrat in Kansas, she knew how to work with Republicans. But what Obamacare needed more was a deft, aggressive manager. Case in point: By all accounts, Sebelius did not grasp the severity of tech problems at healthcare.gov until the day it went live and crashed. If she got the warnings, then she should have heeded them. If she didn’t get the warnings, then she should have appointed people who would have kept her better informed. Either way, that’s a serious management failure.

Still, it’s not as if Obamacare’s implementation difficulties are entirely, or even mostly, the fault of HHS. It’s a typical, if predictable, failure of Washington to demand a fall guy when things go wrong. But responsibility rarely lies with just one person. (That’s one reason Obama resisted calls to fire her.) And this case is no exception.

Implementing Obamacare was never going to be easy. The law is full of compromises that, however politically necessary, weakened regulations and depleted funding that would have made introducing the new insurance system a lot easier. And Sebelius never had the kind of control a chief executive officer would. She was always dealing with a host of other players—from superiors at the White House to underlings at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to Democrats on Capitol Hill to lobbyists for the health care industry. And that’s to say nothing of her war with the congressional Republicans, who were trying actively to sabotage the law through repeal votes, funding cuts, and intimidation of would-be allies.

***

But I will say this. Behind the scenes, they did get to work. I could tell just from the way people talked, the things they said were happening there, that it really was getting better. They were (and I guess still are) sitting on this battery of IT stats about response times and how long a person had to wait to be logged in and so on and so forth, and those were being cut quickly. So Sebelius and the rescue team really did do their jobs once they were up against the wall.

Think of it this way. Did you think, last fall, that they’d actually hit the 7 million? Did you think they’d even come close? In a year-end column I wrote with my 2014 predictions, I said they’d make 5.8 million. And I thought that would be respectable. The latest report is that they’re approaching 7.5 million. So yes, there was utter failure. But there was one hell of a nice recovery. As time goes on, I think Sebelius will start getting less blame for the former, and more credit for the latter.

***

In a sense, the development of the Obamacare website offered a window into the thinking behind the program as a whole. The federal government spent three years building a system in an intensely centralized and consolidated way (refusing even to hand over the basic project management tasks) that is characteristic of the technocratic mindset of Obamacare’s larger approach to American health care. That system failed on launch and turned out to have been ill-designed, retrograde, and sclerotic. It seemed almost beyond repair, but a group of private sector engineers from Silicon Valley firms were able to come in at the lowest point in the crisis and essentially do in six weeks what the government couldn’t do in three years (and was probably never going to be able to do). And yet somehow, the president and others are trying to have people draw from this the lesson that the government actually can handle huge, complicated projects well after all…

Now, as the new insurance arrangements created by the law begin their real-world trials, Democrats argue that the fact that the system survived its earliest self-inflicted wounds should end all debate about its prospects.

That seems a pretty odd conclusion to draw from the past six months.

***

The pressure for further health care reform to “fix” Obamacare’s mess is already rising, and that political pressure will actually increase given the number of people enrolled in either plans they view as too expensive or in Medicaid programs which strain state budgets and fail to deliver access to care. The more those costs burden states and working families with higher costs, worse coverage, and restricted access, the louder the clamor to pass further reforms. Every candidate in 2016 is going to have a health care plan, and the people will decide which direction they want to go.

Why on earth do some on the left think Obamacare ended the health care reform process? There is no end zone in which to spike this football. And when the 2014 election is through, we can really start talking about what big health care reform is going to come next.

***

From the outside, then, Sebelius mostly seemed to play the role of a glorified flack for the president’s health care policies, dutifully making the rounds and mouthing talking points as necessary. And she wasn’t even good at this. Her responses at congressional hearings were so canned that they might have come from a phone-mail system, and they occasionally revealed that she didn’t quite know what she was talking about. Her speeches were ho-hum pablum, when they weren’t being quietly edited after the fact due to unverifiable claims.When she went on offense during the 2012 campaign, she was often wrong or misleading. She engaged in ethically dubious fundraising for outside groups that support Obamacare.

In the last few months, as a spokesperson for the health law, she’s made a fool of herself and the administration. She kicked off the launch of the exchanges with a disastrous, embarrassing interview on The Daily Show, hosted insurance sign-up events where no one could sign up for insurance, and responded to basic questions about Obamacare’s continued poor poll numbers with blank silence. Fitting, I suppose, given that Sebelius has never been one for worthwhile answers.

Maybe—probably—Sebelius doesn’t deserve all or even the majority of the blame for the administration’s health law screw-ups. But regardless of her impact, as the most visible official associated with the law aside from President Obama, she deserved to be shown the door—or at least be given the opportunity to show herself out.

***

Supporters of The Affordable Care Act are quick to brush aside the early problems with implementing the president’s “signature legislative achievement” as old news. “Kathleen Sebelius is resigning because Obamacare has won,” crows Ezra Klein at Vox, the new “deep journalism” website that is supposed to be beyond ideology. But, in fact, Sebelius is hustling out of town before any of the most important questions about Obamacare have been answered.

Among them: Of the 7.1 million people who reportedly signed up for health care in the individual market, how many were previously uninsured? How many have actually paid for coverage? Are they the right mix of young and old, healthy and sick? We know none of this information, which is not simply incidental to whether Obamacare is “winning.”

Sebelius’s abrupt resignation, then, is the fitting capstone of a cabinet tenure that did nothing to inspire feelings of competency and trust in government in a century that is so far replete with revelations of bipartisan secret surveillance, financial mismanagement of the nation, and failed foreign policy.

We deserved better than Kathleen Sebelius.

***


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, April 11, 2014

Sebelius to resign as secretary of HHS

SebeliustoresignassecretaryofHHS

Sebelius to resign as secretary of HHS

posted at 6:56 pm on April 10, 2014 by Allahpundit

So they hit their target of seven million sign-ups and she’s still out the door before the dust settles, eh? Seems … not so triumphant.

Allegedly she jumped rather than waiting to be pushed, but the Times catches something I missed last week. She wasn’t at the Rose Garden ceremony where O declared Mission Accomplished after they hit seven million. Hard to believe she wouldn’t want to be there to join the victory lap after taking so much grief from so many sides for so long over the website. Was she not invited?

Officials said Ms. Sebelius, 65, made the decision to resign and was not forced out. But the frustration at the White House over her performance had become increasingly clear, as administration aides worried that the crippling problems at HealthCare.gov, the website set up to enroll Americans in insurance exchanges, would result in lasting damage to the president’s legacy…

Last month, Ms. Sebelius approached Mr. Obama and began a series of conversations about her future, Mr. McDonough said. The secretary told the president that the March 31 deadline for sign-ups under the health care law — and rising enrollment numbers — provided an opportunity for change, and that he would be best served by someone who was not the target of so much political ire, Mr. McDonough said.

“What was clear is that she thought that it was time to transition the leadership to somebody else,” he said. “She’s made clear in other comments publicly that she recognizes that she takes a lot of the incoming. She does hope — all of us hope — that we can get beyond the partisan sniping.”

Her replacement is Sylvia Mathews Burwell, currently head of Obama’s OMB and someone whom, says the Times, O thinks will bring “an intense focus and management acumen to the department” in contrast to the now departing supervisor of the Healthcare.gov Chernobyl. The confirmation hearings will, I trust, be zesty.

As for Sebelius, I’m nominating her right now to replace Brendan Eich as Mozilla CEO. She’s got plenty of website expertise. I’m sure we’d all be glad to see Firefox “benefit” from it.

Update: Touche.

Update: For old time’s sake:

Update: Sorry, my mistake. Sebelius *was* at the Rose Garden ceremony with Obama but apparently ended up being snubbed anyway. He didn’t mention her when he thanked various pols from the podium for making ObamaCare possible.

Update: Here you go, guys — the rapidly congealing leftist conventional wisdom courtesy of the Voxsplainer-in-chief.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, April 4, 2014

Networks refused to give Obama evening airtime to announce ObamaCare enrollment milestone

NetworksrefusedtogiveObamaeveningairtimeto

Networks refused to give Obama evening airtime to announce ObamaCare enrollment milestone

posted at 2:41 pm on April 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. They’re always reluctant to donate valuable primetime advertising air to the White House, but they’ll do it when the issue is pressing enough. This wasn’t? It would have been O’s big chance to undo some of the political damage to his party among casual voters before the midterm campaigns get rolling. You would think after they helped elect this guy twice that they wouldn’t now deny him a soapbox to crow that, by one and only one very dubious measure, his — and the left’s — big “achievement” is a success. Baffling.

Et tu, NBC?

White House officials sought valuable primetime air for a rare, impromptu Tuesday night address to tout the accomplishment of signing up more than 7 million people under the Affordable Care Act.

But network officials refused to make the kind of accommodation they did previously for the announcement that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, for instance, and Obama was left instead cutting into the much smaller audiences of Ellen and other daytime shows.

Three sources familiar with the request confirmed the White House asked for the primetime slot in their effort both to emphasize a bright moment following the challenging roll out and, more important, to try to reintroduce the country to a law that remains unpopular. One top White House official referred BuzzFeed to another top official for comment on the conversation with networks, but the second official did not respond to a request for comment.

Maybe it was a pure bottom-line calculation or maybe they concluded that, at this point in his presidency, a direct appeal from The One himself just isn’t going to move the needle much — especially on ObamaCare, where public sentiment has been static (with occasional exceptions) for ages. If they’re going to sacrifice some bucks for The Cause, they want some political bang in return. Which makes me wonder: Why didn’t the White House organize a televised concert or something on behalf of ObamaCare? That sounds ridiculous to you and me, but then having the president trade one-liners with Zach Galifianakis sounds ridiculous too and yet it allegedly helped boost traffic to Healthcare.gov. They’ve already used numerous celebrities as a shiny object to get the attention of twentysomethings over the last few months. There’s no shortage of them who’d volunteer to perform for His Majesty if asked, I’m sure — Katy Perry, for one, is famously a proud Obama fan — and the networks would have happily scheduled that in primetime. Why didn’t it happen? They could have had two or three hours of A-listers lined up with the Healthcare.gov web address and an 800 number onscreen the whole time. Red-staters would have hated every minute of it, but so what? The ObamaCare battle lines have already been drawn.

Exit question: It’s a fait accompli that former President Obama will end up making a cameo in a Galifianakis movie someday, isn’t it? Sigh.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Open thread: Are you ready for the ObamaCare victory lap?

Openthread:Areyoureadyforthe

AP sources: ObamaCare “on track” to hit seven million sign-ups before deadline

APsources:ObamaCare“ontrack”tohitseven

AP sources: ObamaCare “on track” to hit seven million sign-ups before deadline

posted at 11:21 am on April 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m not sure what “on track” means given that the deadline’s now come and gone. Presumably it’s a reference to last week’s extension for people who are “in line”: All you need to do is swear that you tried to sign up before March 31st but ran into technical problems and you get extra time to complete the process. That extension was, transparently, all about giving the White House a better chance to reach seven million sign-ups — their original projection for enrollment this year — so that they can now declare “mission accomplished.” It was, like so many of O-Care’s exemptions and shifting deadlines, all about politics. Even though anyone who’s following this issue knows that a good million or more of these sign-ups are or soon will be invalid due to nonpayment of premiums or the simple fact that “sign-ups” includes some people who selected a plan on Healthcare.gov even though they didn’t actually complete the purchase.

Obama’s going to take a victory lap at 4:15 p.m. today. If he’s excited about this number, imagine how excited he’ll be when he finds out how many sign-ups are valid.

Beating expectations, President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul was on track to sign up more than 7 million Americans for health insurance on deadline day Monday, government officials told The Associated Press.

The 7 million target, thought to be out of reach by most experts, was in sight on a day that saw surging consumer interest as well as vexing computer glitches that slowed sign-ups on the HealthCare.gov website…

Seven million was the original target set by the Congressional Budget Office for enrollment in taxpayer-subsidized private health insurance through new online markets created under Obama’s signature legislation.

Not only are “sources” whispering to the media about up-to-the-minute sign-up data, an HHS spokesman reported last night that the website had received nearly five million visits on Monday alone. Which led Byron York to marvel:

We still don’t have data about how many of the seven million were previously uninsured (CBO projected as recently as February that 13 million people formerly without insurance would gain it under O-Care, including the Medicaid expansion) or what the age mix of the various new state risk pools is. Logically, you would think the late enrollment surge would consist mainly of “young knuckleheads” who held off on signing up until the last minute because they don’t desperately need coverage. That’s good news for insurers and for fans of the law, of course, since more young adults in the pool means more healthy people being gouged to subsidize those with preexisting conditions, which in turn means premiums will rise less steeply next year. The bad news for insurers is that, per some recent estimates, young adults comprised just 25-27 percent of the overall risk pool headed into the final month of enrollment. There’d have to be a lot of twentysomethings diving in over the past four weeks to get the administration close to its target of 40 percent or so overall.

In case you missed it yesterday, by one estimate, three-quarters of new ObamaCare enrollees are paying higher premiums now than they used to — which, of course, is very much by design, no matter what The One might tell you. If you’re going to have guaranteed issue and community rating for the sick, the extra revenue to pay for their treatment has to come from somewhere. Exit question: What happens next year when roughly half of new enrollees with subsidized coverage lose their subsidies, bumping them down to Medicaid coverage or no coverage at all?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, March 31, 2014

Sebelius: Oh, by the way, insurers tell us 10-20% of ObamaCare enrollees haven’t paid their premiums yet

Sebelius:Oh,bytheway,insurerstellus

Sebelius: Oh, by the way, insurers tell us 10-20% of ObamaCare enrollees haven’t paid their premiums yet

posted at 6:41 pm on March 31, 2014 by Allahpundit

She’d happily tell you the official HHS number rather than rely on insurance company data if not for the small detail that HHS hasn’t built a payment system on Healthcare.gov yet. Upshot: Figure somewhere between 500,000 and 1.5 million “sign-ups” for ObamaCare are nonpayment cases who’ll sooner or later be bounced from the rolls.

She also told HuffPo today that they got a “Galfianakis bounce” from Obama’s appearance on that dopey Funny Or Die sketch. SNL had some fun with that this weekend — watch the second clip below to see — but Ace is right that the skit’s not as anti-O as some righties are making it out to be. At worst, it slaps him for being a bit too willing to indulge the dumbest impulses of the Kardashians’ fan base. But it’s all for a good cause and O himself is depicted as a reluctant panderer rather than a guy who’ll coopt anything, no matter how little it has to do with him, to get a little extra face time with his core constituencies.

Make sure to watch to the end of the first clip or else you’ll miss one of the more enjoyably awkward silent treatments captured on video in recent years.

News9.com – Oklahoma City, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports |


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

ABC/WaPo poll: Democratic support for ObamaCare surges, plurality of public now supports the law

ABC/WaPopoll:DemocraticsupportforObamaCaresurges,plurality

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Harry Reid: We need to extend the ObamaCare deadline because … some people don’t know how to use the Internet

HarryReid:WeneedtoextendtheObamaCare

House committee chair: Sebelius lied when she said she doesn’t know how many ObamaCare enrollees paid their first premiums

Housecommitteechair:Sebeliusliedwhenshesaid

House committee chair: Sebelius lied when she said she doesn’t know how many ObamaCare enrollees paid their first premiums

posted at 2:01 pm on March 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

Dave Camp uses the more delicate term “evasive and perhaps misleading” in his letter to her but it’s clear enough what he means. This wouldn’t be the first term the White House has been, ahem, evasive and perhaps misleading when it comes to enrollment data either. Sebelius and Jay Carney spent last October hemming and hawing over why they hadn’t released any early enrollment figures yet, insisting it’d be premature to do so and that numbers would be reported at regular intervals. Turns out they had a daily dashboard on Healthcare.gov that was keeping them updated all along. The big take on day one, as you might recall, was … six enrollments. Nationwide.

This new lie is more fun than the earlier one, though, just for the sheer balls required to muster the spin they’re using to deflect it.

Camp (R-Mich.) and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) say they have uncovered “new evidence” that “strongly suggests that the administration knows who has enrolled and paid their first month’s premium.”

The congressmen pointed to an online regulations portal run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that says insurers are required to inform the agency of “the full enrollment and payment profile” for consumers on a monthly basis

“As we have said previously, information about who has paid his or her premium is collected by individual issuers and is not reported to CMS directly by enrollees,” HHS spokeswoman Joanne Peters said in a statement.

“Until the automated payment and reporting system is completed and fully tested, and CMS is able to access individual enrollment and payment information from individual 834 forms, the payment information that CMS receives from insurers is neither final nor complete,” she added. “When we have accurate and reliable data regarding premium payments, we will make that information available.”

In other words, insurers are required to report to CMS every month how many people have paid. The data exists and is right at CMS’s fingertips; even if it’s incomplete, the rate of payment among insurers who have already reported will give us some sense of the rate of payment nationally.

But CMS, which built a website that didn’t work for two months and continues to have back-end problems to this day, doesn’t feel comfortable trusting outside entities. They’d prefer to use their own data, which … doesn’t exist yet because the website’s payment system still hasn’t been built. And they also want to be sure the numbers they give the public are “final” and “complete,” even though the whole reason people keep bugging them for payment data is that CMS’s own highly touted monthly enrollment figures aren’t remotely “final” or “complete” without it. Remember, if you missed the deadline to pay your first premium, your enrollment will be canceled; if it’s true, as anecdotal evidence suggests, that fully 20 percent of new enrollees failed to pay on time, that means HHS’s latest enrollment number of 5+ million as of March 1st could be off by a million people. If they were sincerely worried about misleading the public with incomplete figures, they’d refuse to release enrollment data at all until they knew for sure how many people were, or would be, bounced from the rolls on nonpayment grounds. As it is, they’re more than happy to release crap numbers which they know are artificially inflated in the name of doing what they can to help Democrats facing reelection this fall.

While we’re on the subject, via the Free Beacon, here’s another brazen lie Sebelius told Congress a few weeks ago. Exit question via Dan McLaughlin: At what point is a special prosecutor finally on the table here?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Carney: We just “don’t have specific data” for how many people have paid their premiums

Carney:Wejust“don’thavespecificdata”for

Carney: We just “don’t have specific data” for how many people have paid their premiums

posted at 8:01 pm on March 18, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The Obama administration announced to much fanfare on Monday that ObamaCare enrollment has “surged” by 800,00 over just the past two weeks to take the program’s total enrollment to 5 million people. If that were true, it would be semi-encouraging news about the procrastinators the Obama administration was desperately counting on to give their costly risk pools the requisite number of participants — but as ever, they have rather conspicuously left out just a few itty bitty details from what could possibly be some very inflated numbers:

QUESTION: You started out by saying 5 million people have enrolled. Is that the correct word, “enrolled,” since we still don’t know how many people have actually paid their premiums. Is it that 5 million signed up, will we get the information on who is actually enrolled and paid their premiums?

CARNEY: CMS is working to provide more detailed data on who had already paid their premiums, what percentage of the population of enrollees that includes. We can point you to major insurers who have placed that figure at 80 percent, give-or-take, depending on the insurer, but we don’t have specific data that is going to be in a reliable enough form to provide.

In the meantime, at least a couple of states have had made such a terrible showing with their online ObamaCare exchanges and their enrollment numbers, they’re pressing the Obama administration for exceptions to the inconveniently approaching March 31st enrollment deadline:

At least two states are requesting a longer Obamacare enrollment period–and they might get it. …

Nevada and Oregon hope to qualify for one of the health law’s special enrollment periods. Consumers in both states have faced technical issues in getting coverage: Oregonians still don’t have a functioning online exchange, and Nevadans are receiving error messages and hitting other site glitches reminiscent of HealthCare.gov‘s early days. …

State exchange officials have reached out to HHS to request permission to extend the enrollment period. Oregon exchange spokeswoman Ariane Holm said the state is seeking an extension through the end of April. Nevada is looking at up to 60 days, as permitted by law.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat8:01

Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on March 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

Once carried like a conquering hero, President Obama is now pleading with donors for help to push his agenda, having to convince them that his record is something that should wow them.

“Do you still have my back?” Obama asks in a new letter to donors and contributors. “You should be proud of what we have been able to accomplish together,” he argues. “Can I count on you?”…

The fundraising letter for the Democratic National Committee even offers potential members a gift, a half-sized bumper sticker that reads, “I’ve STILL got his back.”

***

The White House has often asserted that the president and his cabinet have flexibility to depart from the letter of the law if the modification or delay is consistent with the spirit of the legislation. The words used to describe these actions are often vague or general in nature, but in testimony Wednesday before the House Ways and Means Committee, Kathleen Sebelius used remarkably candid language to refer to her agency’s rewrites of Obamacare. In an exchange with Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) over why the administration had not sent legislation to Congress to alter problematic portions of the law, Sebelius said…:

“We have implemented a number of changes in the way the law was written to ease the transition into the marketplace” for consumers, insurers and employers.

The secretary seemed to be suggesting that legislative fixes were not necessary because the executive branch already had the power to change “the way the law was written.” The president has affirmed this position in the statement released on Wednesday opposing H.R. 4138 ,which calls on the president to “Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law” or face a possible lawsuit by Congress, arguing that Congress’s complaints over his administration’s rewrites are essentially “political disputes.”

***

The Obama administration has carved out a swath of exemptions for Obamacare’s individual mandate that could conceivably apply to anyone who claims to have a “hardship” in obtaining health insurance…

[T]he open-ended language has baffled even those sympathetic to Obamacare.

“An individual applicant would still need to show that they had suffered a hardship, but the language is awfully open-ended. It is hard to imagine what they were thinking when the threw the door open this wide,” said Tim Jost, a health law professor at Washington & Lee University who supports Obamacare.

Salon columnist Brian Beutler put it more bluntly: “The individual mandate is riddled with loopholes large enough to drive just about every uninsured person in the country through,” he wrote. “It even troubles some of the law’s most steadfast supporters.”

***

Some have speculated that the bulk of the new sign-ups have come from those with previous insurance plans that got cancelled because of Obamacare, which would mean fewer Americans than expected are actually gaining coverage as a result of the law who otherwise wouldn’t have it. HHS hasn’t released data on the prior insurance status of those selecting a plan through one of the exchanges, leaving health care policy analysts to parse various surveys looking for clues.

So I decided to do a little experiment. All else being equal, I postulated, if Obamacare sign-ups were mostly coming from the ranks of the uninsured, then states with the highest percentages of uninsured should be signing up the most people on a population-adjusted basis…

As you can see, Texas, the state with the highest percentage uninsured, ranked 27th in terms of adjusted Obamacare sign-ups. Overall, seven of the states with the top 10 uninsured percentages did not crack the top 10 states for Obamacare sign-ups by percentage, and six of the states didn’t make the top 26. The exceptions were Florida, California and Montana, which were on the top 10 of both lists…

[I]f Obamacare is to make a more significant dent in the number of the uninsured, it’s probably going to need deeper penetration into those states with the highest rates of uninsured residents.

***

That could be one reason why Democrats seem so vexed over how to handle Obamacare in midterm campaigning. Many have adopted the “keep and fix” approach used unsuccessfully by Democrat Alex Sink in this week’s special election to fill the House seat in Florida’s 13th Congressional District. The problem is, they’re strong on the “keep” part but confused on the “fix” part.

When asked how she would fix Obamacare, Sink offered small suggestions that would not have addressed the higher premiums, higher deductibles, and narrower choices the law has imposed on millions of Americans. Other Democrats who have also pledged to fix Obamacare have offered even fewer ways to actually do it.

And they’re not getting any help from the administration

But they have to do something. It’s conventional wisdom that Republicans who advocate getting rid of Obamacare have to offer an alternative. Now, it’s just as true that Democrats who advocate fixing Obamacare have to offer a fix. Soon.

***

The spectacle of the president of the United States turning into a pitchman for multibillion-dollar publicly traded insurance companies is jarring. It also represents quite a journey for Obama, who once described himself as a “proponent” of single-payer health care, which largely eliminates for-profit insurers.

But Obama finds himself in this situation due to a combination of his own choices and political constraints. He rejected market-based reforms of the health care system (such as allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines and ending the discrimination in the tax code against individuals buying insurance on their own) that would have increased competition for insurance and brought down premiums.

At the same time, he wasn’t willing to take on the insurance industry and support a much more disruptive single-payer system. His olive branch to the left — a government-run health insurance option to be sold on the exchanges along with privately administered plans — couldn’t pass through the Senate even with Democrats controlling 60 votes…

Thus far, the program is tracking well below expectations.

***

Trying to pussyfoot around Obamacare was an awkward strategy, and, evidently, it didn’t work. If other Democrats are to avoid meeting Sink’s fate in November, they need something more convincing to say about the Affordable Care Act than “mend it, don’t end it,” which is now their default position. But what could that be?

Here’s a heretical idea. Rather than parsing the individual elements of the law, and trying to persuade voters on an à la carte basis, what about raising the stakes and defending the reform in its entirety as a historic effort to provide affordable health-care coverage to tens of millions of hard-working Americans who otherwise couldn’t afford it? Instead of shying away from the populist and redistributionist essence of the reform, which the White House and many Democrats in Congress have been doing since the start, it’s time to embrace it.

What would that mean? It would involve reaching out to the Democratic Party’s core voters—lower-income people, minorities, highly educated liberals—and portraying Obamacare as the fulfillment of the great human-rights project that began in the nineteen-thirties, under Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was expanded during the nineteen-sixties, under Lyndon Johnson. That message wouldn’t merely be more honest; it would be more effective in getting Democratic voters to turn out in November, which is essential if the Party isn’t to suffer a repeat of 2010.

***

Via Guy Benson.

***

***

Via CNS.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Hawaii ponders: It might be time to start taxing insurers for not participating in our ObamaCare exchange

Hawaiiponders:Itmightbetimetostart

Hawaii ponders: It might be time to start taxing insurers for not participating in our ObamaCare exchange

posted at 2:41 pm on March 11, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Five months and approaching a coupla’ hundred million dollars in federal grants later, Hawaii still hasn’t made much progress on mending their terrifically botched ObamaCare exchange website, and the clock is ticking. With barely a few weeks to go until the open enrollment period ends (for now — I have very little faith that His Highness won’t issue another royal decree somehow extending that deadline, too), the state government is entering panic mode over their super-low enrollment figures and their definitive lack of a long-term financing plan for the exchange, which needs to be self-sustaining by the start of 2015. As of mid-February, only about 4,400 people were signed up for health insurance through ObamaCare — a rather conspicuous dip from the hundred thousand people Gov. Neil Abercrombie once predicted would hop to it:

The exchange had originally planned to stay afloat by collecting a 2% fee on every plan sold through the exchange, but with the slow pace of enrollment and changing federal rules — delaying the employer mandate and allowing canceled plans to continue — Interim Director Tom Matsuda said Wednesday that the math simply does not add up. …

Of the 100,000 uninsured in Hawaii, about half are expected to be eligible for Medicaid — meaning just 50,000 people would buy individual plans through the Health Connector under the best-case scenario. And while Hawaii hoped to sell thousands of plans through the exchange’s small-business marketplace, Matsuda said so few small businesses are eligible for tax credits that officials are simply not seeing the demand. “What people can get on the Connector versus outside the Connector is the same, so there isn’t really a strong incentive for small employers to use the Connector,” he said.

Further complicating matters, only two insurers offer plans on Hawaii’s exchange, so many companies are continuing to rely on their longtime brokers (who, having essentially been cut out of the process, have no incentive to help Hawaiians buy plans on the exchange).

Hence, Hawaiian legislators’ latest proposal to cover their bums includes a plan to start charging a “fee” to insurers that decided not to participate in the state’s exchange.

The fee would help prop up the financially troubled Hawaii Health Connector, which could run out of money to pay its bills by year’s end.

“This is not something we want to do,” said Rep. Angus McKelvey, chairman of the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee. “It’s federally mandated that we have to have our exchanges be sustainable.”

The unspecified fee would be charged by the state insurance commissioner until mid-2018, based on the number of people the carrier insures. …

The new insurance fee is part of a flurry of House proposals that were rolled into one overarching bill (HB 2529) now being considered by the Senate. …

A “fee,” i.e., slapping a tax on any insurer (and, subsequently, its customers) that decided it was not in their company’s interest to participate in ObamaCare just yet. As the LA Times piece above notes, there are only two insurers currently participating in Hawaii’s exchange — meaning that, if the proposal passes, everybody else is going to have to pay to subsidize ObamaCare’s poor technical, logistical, and financial functionality in the state. And here I was, thinking that ObamaCare was supposed to improve the market and lower everybody’s costs, or something?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Hawaii ponders: It might be time to start taxing insurers for not participating in our ObamaCare exchange

Hawaiiponders:Itmightbetimetostart

Hawaii ponders: It might be time to start taxing insurers for not participating in our ObamaCare exchange

posted at 2:41 pm on March 11, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Five months and approaching a coupla’ hundred million dollars in federal grants later, Hawaii still hasn’t made much progress on mending their terrifically botched ObamaCare exchange website, and the clock is ticking. With barely a few weeks to go until the open enrollment period ends (for now — I have very little faith that His Highness won’t issue another royal decree somehow extending that deadline, too), the state government is entering panic mode over their super-low enrollment figures and their definitive lack of a long-term financing plan for the exchange, which needs to be self-sustaining by the start of 2015. As of mid-February, only about 4,400 people were signed up for health insurance through ObamaCare — a rather conspicuous dip from the hundred thousand people Gov. Neil Abercrombie once predicted would hop to it:

The exchange had originally planned to stay afloat by collecting a 2% fee on every plan sold through the exchange, but with the slow pace of enrollment and changing federal rules — delaying the employer mandate and allowing canceled plans to continue — Interim Director Tom Matsuda said Wednesday that the math simply does not add up. …

Of the 100,000 uninsured in Hawaii, about half are expected to be eligible for Medicaid — meaning just 50,000 people would buy individual plans through the Health Connector under the best-case scenario. And while Hawaii hoped to sell thousands of plans through the exchange’s small-business marketplace, Matsuda said so few small businesses are eligible for tax credits that officials are simply not seeing the demand. “What people can get on the Connector versus outside the Connector is the same, so there isn’t really a strong incentive for small employers to use the Connector,” he said.

Further complicating matters, only two insurers offer plans on Hawaii’s exchange, so many companies are continuing to rely on their longtime brokers (who, having essentially been cut out of the process, have no incentive to help Hawaiians buy plans on the exchange).

Hence, Hawaiian legislators’ latest proposal to cover their bums includes a plan to start charging a “fee” to insurers that decided not to participate in the state’s exchange.

The fee would help prop up the financially troubled Hawaii Health Connector, which could run out of money to pay its bills by year’s end.

“This is not something we want to do,” said Rep. Angus McKelvey, chairman of the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee. “It’s federally mandated that we have to have our exchanges be sustainable.”

The unspecified fee would be charged by the state insurance commissioner until mid-2018, based on the number of people the carrier insures. …

The new insurance fee is part of a flurry of House proposals that were rolled into one overarching bill (HB 2529) now being considered by the Senate. …

A “fee,” i.e., slapping a tax on any insurer (and, subsequently, its customers) that decided it was not in their company’s interest to participate in ObamaCare just yet. As the LA Times piece above notes, there are only two insurers currently participating in Hawaii’s exchange — meaning that, if the proposal passes, everybody else is going to have to pay to subsidize ObamaCare’s poor technical, logistical, and financial functionality in the state. And here I was, thinking that ObamaCare was supposed to improve the market and lower everybody’s costs, or something?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair