Remember that episode of Oprah a few years ago where she famously gave the entire studio audience a car? "You get a car! You get a car! You, and you, and you and YOU get a car!"
That’s how the Obama administration is starting to look with its get-out-of-health-care-reform waivers.
At last count, the number of waivers given by the Health and Human Services Department to insurers and employers to escape annual benefit limits outlined in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had ballooned to more than 700 in December, up from about 30 just two months prior.
Now, comes news that HHS has granted annual limit immunity to four entire states — Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee — and that more states might win waivers as well.
What in the world is going on here? Why even bother touting the provision (which the president did when he was stumping in support of the law) if you’re going to just let insurers and employers backslide out of complying?
It’s too much for my Friday-fried mind to ponder, so I’ll let you take it away in the comments: Should the annual limit provision just get repealed, or is it okay for the administration to keep Oprah-fying it away with waivers?
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Employee Benefit Views, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immediately be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
3 Comment(s)
Posted by: Daniel B | February 23, 2011 9:32 AM
Dear "Trustmgr":
I wonder if it ocurred to you that the "very complex framework" was established by Mr. Obama and his colleagues in Congress, led by Ms. Pelosi. (She, by the way, who famously and pro0udly declared that passage of the bill was necessary so that time would then be had to "read it and find out what's in it!)
The necessary implication of the Law of Unintended Consequences is that the market and not government bureacrats will always be the best arbiter of production of goods and services.
The attempt to creat a perfect world, or even a better one, by government is doomed to fail. Read the history of the "Great Society", Social Security, etc.
We are like frogs being slowly boiled by our collective ignorance of and apapthy towards Liberty.
May God bless you.
Report this Comment
Posted by: JAMES T | February 22, 2011 2:53 PM
No, it's not OK. Either the PPACA stands for all or none. The groups that are paying the higher price and have no negotiating power are the smaller companies with less than 100 employees. They're getting the 20+ rate increases, and they have nowhere to turn. "Take it or leave it." PPACA took competition away; carriers don't want to compete in this market. We've already witnessed numerous revisions to the PPACA, and we'll see more. However, one thing should remain true, and that is that the PPACA must be for all entities - public, private, small, large - or my preferance, dump it.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Trustmgr | February 22, 2011 2:48 PM
This is much more complicated than it appears. Many Taft Hartley plans, for instance, are funded with multiyear contracts which fix the employer contributions. An increase in the annual limit to the required level is not possible without breaking numerous contracts - which is not a provision of the law. The office that is reviewing and approving or denying waivers has been very carefully addressing this situation and should be complimented for handling. Also, while the negative publicity has focused on a few plans with what appear to be very low annual limits ($2000 to $5000)- but there are many plans with substantial limits but less than the $750,000 initial annual limit requirement. This is actually a good sign that the Obama Administration is working well within a very complex framework.
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...