People With Disabilities Who Opt Out of ‘Voluntary’ Wellness Programs Will Pay the Price, and the EEOC’s Okay With That.

The following originally appeared on the American Civil Liberties Union's Speak Freely Blog.

 Voluntary wellness programs at work can provide benefits to employees, but employers are increasingly adopting “voluntary” wellness programs that unfairly burden workers with disabilities the most of all. Worse, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seems to think that’s okay, undermining core antidiscrimination protections it used to defend.

Here’s why.

Imagine a woman living with rheumatoid arthritis and severe depression who, under doctor’s care, has finally returned to work. Her medications — a corticosteroid and an antidepressant — have triggered weight gain. Now imagine this woman facing her employer’s “wellness activities:” She is instructed to fill out a detailed questionnaire about her medical conditions; she is weighed and pronounced overweight; she is told to lose weight. Oh, and the program is voluntary — but if she doesn’t comply, she will have to pay hundreds of dollars more in annual health care premiums. 

This imaginary example is all too real: Persons with disabilities risk discrimination and stigma if their employers gain access to their private medical information. And disabled workers are far more likely to have a condition targeted by wellness programs, such as high blood pressure, high blood glucose, or being overweight. 

Historically, the Americans with Disabilities Act has provided employees with disabilities some protections against overly intrusive and punitive wellness programs. The EEOC has maintained, sensibly, that voluntary medical examinations and inquiries cannot impose penalties on employees who decline to participate. 

Until now.

The EEOC has recently proposed new regulations and guidance language on wellness programs that would allow employers to implement wellness programs that add up to 30 percent of the cost of the employee’s health insurance to an employee’s health care bill. Based on the average annual premium, this translates to an extra cost for disabled employees of about $1,800 per year, either because they don’t want to answer questions that could expose their disability to their employer or because they cannot meet the health goal

The EEOC describes these programs as “voluntary,” but workers with disabilities are the least likely to be able to afford additional health care premiums. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income for people with disabilities is less than half of household income for people without disabilities: $25,974 compared to $61,103. At the same time, there is little evidence that these programs are effective. 

If the EEOC is going to allow employers to charge workers hundreds more each year, it needs to be sure important privacy and disability protections are in place.

Three safeguards matter the most. First, the EEOC needs to provide guidance language that workers with disabilities have the right to request a reasonable accommodation waiver from a wellness program, so that their medical status can be taken into account in their ability to comply. The guidelines should also protect disabled workers’ privacy, so that their decision to join or not join the wellness program doesn’t broadcast the details of — or even the existence of — their medical condition to their employer. Finally, disabled workers should rest assured that the guidelines protect them from disability-based discrimination in the workplace, such as harassment of employees who cannot comply with “normal” health standards. 

Comments on the proposed regulations are due this Friday, June 19, 2015. Tell the EEOC not to permit employers to subject their disabled workers to a Hobson’s choice: Submit to the prescribed wellness activities, or pay hundreds more each year. The EEOC should instead insure that workers with disabilities can opt out of these programs without penalty. 

Claudia Center

Senior Staff Attorney

American Civil Liberties Union

Same-Sex Couples Celebrate New Marriage and Healthcare Rights

The Supreme Court of the United States has been awfully busy lately—after last week’s landmark

rulings to uphold the Affordable Care Act and legalizing same-sex marriage, SCOTUS is certainly living up to its name. And while these decisions have massive implications in completely different realms of the American social and political landscape, they both improve the future of healthcare for same-sex couples. After facing decades of coverage ineligibility and discriminatory practices, achieving marriage equality means that same-sex couples will finally receive equitable treatment in a number of different areas of the healthcare arena.

New Options for Enrollment and Coverage

Because same-sex marriage is now recognized under federal law, LGBT couples are entitled to utilize insurance enrollment and coverage options designated for married spouses. One such opportunity now available to same-sex couples is the special enrollment period. Newly married same-sex spouses previously needed to wait to apply for coverage until the open enrollment period but these couples are now eligible to apply for coverage within 60 days of their union. These special enrollment periods are available to applicants who have recently experienced a major life event, a category which now incorporates same-sex marriages in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Same-sex partners across the nation are now eligible to receive coverage under their spouse’s employer. A recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that less than half of employers offer insurance to non-married same-sex couples. Now that same-sex marriages are recognized under federal law, married same-sex couples across the nation will be able to access the same coverage benefits as heterosexual couples.  Although coverage for same-sex spouses was previously available through many insurance providers, same-sex couples will now have equal opportunity to access these benefits.

Spousal Rights

Friday’s Supreme Court decision also marks a huge step towards equal rights for same-sex spouses in healthcare settings. Couples who were previously denied basic spousal rights such as default power of attorney will be entitled to the same privileges as heterosexual couples in healthcare settings.

Although this may seem like a small victory to couples that have faced this type of discrimination, this decision marks a giant leap forward in the fight for equality. Take the story of LGBT rights activist Janice Langbehn: while vacationing with their family in Florida in 2009, Janice’s partner of 18 years Lisa Marie Pond suddenly collapsed and was rushed to a local trauma center. Because they were not Lisa’s blood relatives, Janice and their three adopted children were not allowed to see Lisa and were in the waiting room while she received treatment. Although Janice had power of attorney and the documentation was faxed to the hospital within an hour of Lisa’s arrival, it was too late: Lisa had suffered a brain aneurysm and slipped into a coma, and died without her partner or her children by her side.

Unfortunately, Lisa and Janice’s story is not unique—hundreds of same-sex couples have similar heart-wrenching stories of being denied basic spousal rights in hospitals and other healthcare systems. This landmark ruling will hopefully put an end to these discriminatory practices and allow same-sex couples the same fundamental rights to which all married couples are entitled.

An End to Discrimination

The recent ruling will hopefully mark an end to the prejudicial practices often employed by hospitals and healthcare facilities in serving same-sex couples and their families. As illustrated by Lisa and Janice’s story, unequal treatment of same-sex couples has been an unfortunate part of our nation’s healthcare history. These practices will hopefully be left in the past with this monumental decision.

Although Illinois was ahead of the curve in officially recognizing same-sex marriage, our statewide healthcare institutions have not all been sensitive to the specific care needs of LGBT patients. In an effort to hold healthcare organization accountable for their policies and practices for serving LGBT communities, the Human Rights Campaign launched their Healthcare Equality Index (HEI), which evaluates the equitable treatment of LGBT patients in healthcare settings based on the presence of four criteria: providing staff training in LGBT patient-centered care, equal visitation rights for LGBT patients and their visitors and written patient and employment non-discrimination policies. Although 16 Illinois hospitals and healthcare systems ranked among the 427 national leaders in LGBT healthcare equality, 12 of the 50 Illinois facilities surveyed in 2014 failed to meet the majority of equality criteria.

Despite this, equitable healthcare treatment for the LGBT community on a national scale is closer now than ever before. The 2014 HEI survey found that 84% of the hospitals met all four criteria for LGBT patient-centered care. This is a 101% increase in the number of healthcare systems designated as national leaders in promoting LGBT equality in 2013.

The Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage symbolizes a new era of equality, while the upholding of the Affordable Care Act marks a huge stride towards equal healthcare for same-sex couples nationwide. Now that the federal government has done its part in recognizing same-sex marriage, it’s up to healthcare systems across the nation to follow suit and ensure that their practices promote equitable treatment for LGBT patients and their families.

Dena Balk
Policy Intern
Health & Disability Advocates

Redoing Redes: Strengthening Communication Procedures in the Illinois Medicaid Redetermination Project

The Illinois Medicaid Redetermination Project (IMRP) is erroneously suspending vital medical care for people who remain eligible. Since the rollout of the IMRP in early 2013, the program has been plagued by inadequate communication from the state that leaves consumers confused and ultimately without healthcare. Consumers report that they are not receiving the required notices by mail and when they call with questions, frontline state staff cannot provide answers. Because of the state’s ineffective communication protocols and inadequate employee training, rightful Medicaid beneficiaries are in the precarious situation of being unable to fill their prescriptions, go to the doctor or receive treatment. The purpose of the IMRP is to save state dollars by trimming the Medicaid program of those who are no longer eligible, not cut people who still deserve services.

Letters Lost in the Mail

Medicaid beneficiaries are cut simply because they never received their redetermination notices in the mail. For example, Health & Disability Advocates worked with a mother whose child had been dropped from Medicaid because IMRP sent the notice to a non-existent address. The fact that IRMP sent the letter to an incorrect address on the same street where the family lived suggests that it was a clerical error. In this situation, a young adult dealing with serious mental illness could not access medication and treatment, because the state, not the individual made an error. Sudden lapses in care can pose serious consequences for people who rely on these supports for their physical and mental health.

This is not an isolated instance. A survey of case managers working with older adults and people with disabilities found that the IMRP fails to adequately notify people of their redetermination responsibilities and inform them when they are bounced from the program. Many get the bad news when they attempt to fill prescription or go to the doctor and are told that they are no longer covered. People deserve clear communication from the state telling them they are no longer covered and the steps to get reinstated.

Confused and Not Covered

Even in cases where Medicaid recipients do receive notices, many consumers find the letters are hard to understand and filled with jargon. Given that the intended audience has never before been required to submit to annual redeterminations and may also have lower literacy levels, the letters must be crystal clear. Reports from case managers suggest the letters are confusing.  One case manager surveyed noted “clients do not understand what documents they need to submit with the form and whether they need to submit anything.” With the potential for people to lose their health coverage, the consequences of this confusion are severe.

IMRP’s own data reveal their communication shortcomings. According to May’s Medicaid redetermination numbers, 81% of cancellations are due to a lack of response. Being cancelled doesn’t mean a person is ineligible. In fact, a substantial portion of these clients should still be receiving services.  Of those dropped, 1/3 were reinstated within three months.  In FY 2015 alone, this translates into 238,025 people being incorrectly cut from Medicaid, and this number could be even higher. People who are less frequent healthcare users may learn of their cancellation when they attempt to schedule a doctor’s appointment. With people who deserve Medicaid cut from the program, the IMRP is not achieving its main objective of reducing state expenditures by eliminating those who no longer qualify. Cutting eligible people will actually result in higher costs. Without access to primary medical treatment, people will resort to more costly emergency room care for conditions that could have been managed or even prevented.

Matters get worse when consumers call state workers for clarification, because frontline staff members are often not fully informed themselves. In the above-mentioned case of the mother fighting for her son’s coverage to be reinstated, her interaction with the IMRP hotline was unhelpful and hurtful. The representative said there was nothing more she could do and blamed the family. Stateline workers should be fully trained to provide answers; anything less only increases confusion and frustration.

The Path Forward

The state must develop plain-language notices that explain redeterminations and their importance while outlining the specific steps to keeping coverage. This would not be a new undertaking. State officials have previously brainstormed ways to create simple, more consumer friendly forms. Unfortunately, the furor around budget deficits and service cut threats has drowned out the push for clear communication standards. Even worse, continuing to deemphasize this issue will leave many rightful Medicaid recipients suddenly without coverage. Communication protocols and state staff should support individuals in maintaining their vital connection to healthcare, not create hurdles that effectively jeopardize emotional and physical health. State officials must restart the discussions on clear notices and broaden the conversation to include improved training for frontline staff. These reforms will go a long way towards supporting the IMRP’s original objective of eliminating wasteful spending while also keeping those who still deserve coverage connected to care.

Engaging Uninsured Cynics of the ACA

On a blistering cold Chicago night in November 2013, I met with Lorena, a 25-year-old uninsured Mexican-American bartender whose income fell below $18,000.  Lorena belonged to a group that health policy experts refer to as “newly-eligibles,” single able-bodied adults without children living in poverty who now qualify for Medicaid thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

Lorena could have enrolled herself with relative ease. At the time, outreach efforts for the ACA were in full swing. In her home neighborhood of Pilsen, health navigators, insurance brokers, and nonprofit organizations were at soup kitchens, schools, taxi stands, and social service organizations spreading word and enrolling thousands. Our conversation, however, revealed something surprising.

“Do you plan on applying for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act?” I asked sitting across from her at a south loop coffee shop near the bar she worked.

“No,” she bluntly replied.

“Why not?” I asked.

“Mainly because I don’t trust government. I think anything they’re going to be putting out is flawed.”  

“What makes you so distrustful?” I asked.

“My friend got these really strong stomach pains and almost fainted so I took her to the county hospital. We were there sitting for hours in the emergency room! The nurses were all hanging out at the desk giggling and laughing and talking to each other drinking their coffee and my friend is bent over like this [Lorena hunches over as she speaks] ready to pass out! I yelled at one of them, “are you gonna take care of her?” They came back to me laughing [telling me], “I’m sorry, we’re actually really professional.”

“What happened to your friend?”

“She was really dehydrated and had a bad urinary tract infection. She spent the night at the hospital which cost her $2300.”

“That experience made you distrustful?”

“Yeah, it’s terrible. When I look at the actual doctors [at the county hospital], they’re very professional and educated but everything else is downhill. With these county clinics, the staff sucks! It’s like they’re hiring just anybody.”

Being Uninsured a Conscious Decision

From November 2013-April 2014, I interviewed 45 uninsured adults like Lorena (between 21 and 35, single, without children, low-income) as part of an ethnographic study of the uninsured in the age of the Affordable Care Act. To my surprise, two-thirds refused to enroll or even inquire about the ACA because of their cynicism in government or the quality of health care provided by Cook County. For people like Lorena, their lack of health insurance did not stem from a lack of outreach or access. Being uninsured was a conscious decision to distance themselves from government and health care agencies.

As outreach efforts continue in Cook County and elsewhere, it is important for health care professionals to remember that the ACA is just one of many arms by which government shapes the lives of the uninsured working poor. For Latinas like Lorena, many of whom have undocumented family members, the ACA is part of the same government body that is deporting family members. For many of my Black respondents, the ACA was seen as part of the same government body whose police force is excessively using deadly force against Black citizens.

Although Medicaid enrollment has exceeded Cook County’s expectations, nearly 600,000 remain uninsured. It’s possible that people like Lorena, with distrust and cynicism toward government and health care, will be the most difficult to enroll.

Lorena’s story highlights the importance of bringing more nuance and strategy to ACA outreach efforts. For cynics of the ACA, simply informing them of their options is not enough to persuade them to enroll. Instead, cynics need to have their opinions validated (no matter how inaccurate or outlandish they might appear) and be empowered to enroll.

Convincing the Skeptics

Two weeks after my interview with Lorena, I observed Abram (a health navigator) put these face-to-face outreach strategies to work during his interaction with Joyce, a 32-year-old cynical and uninsured Black woman. It was family fun night at a Boys and Girls Club in Pilsen. Joyce brought her niece to the event and was sitting at a table eating a sandwich when Abram approached and introduced himself.

“Hi, I’m Abe.”

“Nice to meet you, I’m Joyce.”

“I’m here working for an organization and we’re trying to sign people up for the ACA.”

“Really?” asked Joyce.

“Yes, do you have health insurance now?”

 “No.”

Abe pulled out a bright yellow pamphlet and said, “That’s ok. I can assist you with enrolling. In the end, it is completely up to you to make that final decision if you want to enroll in anything at all. I can start you off to see what’s out there. There’s Medicaid, which is completely free public assistance. With the new Medicaid, insurance companies can no longer deny you for pre-existing conditions.”

Joyce raised her eyebrow asking “Really?”

In response, Abe raised both hands in the air to gesture he meant no harm stuttering “I, I, I, don’t want to make any promises because, obviously, we have to see what plan you are eligible for…”

Joyce interrupted, “But that really means a lot to me because I’ve been denied lots of things in the past.”

Abe continued, “I’m going to leave you with my information [hands her his business card]. [Abe pulls out another sheet of paper] This is a list of documents that we are going to need in order to fill out your application, and I can actually sit down with you, with your permission, to go through the entire application. That is something you could do by yourself if you wanted to, or I could sit down with you and assist you.” One week later, Joyce made an appointment with Abe and enrolled.

Like Lorena, Joyce was skeptical that the Affordable Care Act would benefit her. In my interview with Joyce, she shared frustrating stories of seeking medical treatment for health problems only to be told she was ineligible for assistance.

Abram, however, never discounted or diminished Joyce’s skepticism. Nor did he make any promises that he could not keep. Instead, he validated Joyce’s concerns and reminded her that she was the one in control of the interaction, that she could walk away at any time.

Abram did not have to persuade Joyce to trust government or even health care providers. He just had to convince her to trust him, and he was successful by validating her concerns and empowering her.

The Outreach Road Ahead

As the ACA enters its third year, it is now entering a phase where those with the easiest access have enrolled and where many of the remaining uninsured are the hardest to reach. These include many uninsured adults whose negative experiences with government or health agencies have formed the basis of their outlook toward the ACA.

With face-to-face outreach strategies designed to validate and empower the low-income uninsured into enrolling, organizations conducting outreach for the ACA may be able to continue closing the cracks in the Illinois health insurance safety net. As Joyce said in recalling her interaction with Abe, “He didn’t try to sell me. He just say, once we do this it’s strictly up to you just because you talk with us and give us your information doesn’t mean you have to sign up, the ultimate decision is up to you.”

Robert Vargas
Assistant Professor of Sociology
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Robert is currently conducting research on the Affordable Care Act in Chicago, and the publications from his health care research are available at his website www.robvargas.com.

ObamaCare Is Here – But Is It Working for People with HIV?

Read AFC's CountyCare report and press release.

On January 1, 2014, national health care reform will kick into high gear, providing new health insurance options for millions of people across the country. And thanks to visionary leadership from Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, Cook County Health and Hospitals System Board CEO Dr. Ram Raju, and the Obama administration, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is already being implemented in Cook County in the form of CountyCare.

This new program implements a provision of national health care reform that allows states to expand Medicaid programs to cover most low-income adults. The federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) granted Cook County permission to implement the program in October 2012. Previously, as many as 250,000 Cook County residents were excluded from Medicaid because they did not meet the program’s restrictive eligibility requirements, such as being totally disabled. The AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC) estimates that 1,800 or more Cook County residents with HIV could benefit from CountyCare.

While CountyCare is a sign of great things to come, it also provides some critical lessons that can be applied later this year when health care reform rolls out statewide. AFC recently released a new report, CountyCare & the Ryan White Program: Working Together to Optimize Health Outcomes for People with HIV, that details the importance of CountyCare and the role it can play in improving access to health care for HIV-affected individuals. It also contains a number of policy recommendations for the city and state departments of public health, Cook County, and the federal government that aim to improve the program for people with HIV and avoid problems in the future.

The most significant issue with CountyCare for people with HIV is that nine HIV clinics  in Chicago are excluded from the primary care network. As a result, 500 or more patients with HIV could be forced to switch doctors to receive care at a clinic that’s already enrolled.

Many low-income people with HIV have connections to the health care system that are tenuous at best. They are facing not just HIV and its paralyzing stigmas, but also homelessness, mental illness, substance use, and chronic physical health conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease. Large numbers live in violence-plagued communities in Chicago, where a trip to the corner store can mean getting caught in turf-war crossfire. In such contexts, HIV care is the last thing on a person’s mind, and something as simple as having to find a new doctor can cause them to drop out of medical care entirely.

Delayed or disrupted health care harms people with HIV and also worsens the health of our communities.  People who are not taking HIV medications face a far greater risk of transmitting HIV to their partners. In fact,research shows that people whose HIV is controlled with medications have a 96 percent lower risk of transmitting HIV to their partners.

If those nine clinics are unable to join the CountyCare network, their HIV-positive clients will be forced to switch to new health care providers. The federal Ryan White Program, which subsidizes medical care for low-income uninsured patients with HIV, is mandated by law to be the payer of last resort, tapped only when people have exhausted all other sources of coverage. In fact, federal law prohibits clinics from serving patients with Ryan White dollars if their insurance could be used. Thus, people with HIV are caught in a bind: They are required to apply for all insurance for which they are eligible, but if they enroll, they might be forced to leave their current health care provider of choice.

The Ryan White Program’s payer-of-last-resort provision is a double-edged sword. Despite being a resource for people without coverage, it has the potential to disrupt existing doctor/patient relationships, something all of us – and especially people with chronic, complex health conditions like HIV and other co-occurring diagnoses – want to avoid.

Such potential disruptions occur because different federal government entities routinely drop the ball in coordinating and communicating their strategies. One of the lessons we have learned as we prepare to implement health care reform nationwide is to closely monitor the interactions and implications of various programs.  We cannot rely on the federal government to communicate across or even within agencies. Sustained advocacy and vigilance will be needed as health reform kicks off.

So what are other lessons we are learning from the CountyCare rollout, and what can we do to avoid situations like this in the future?

It’s clear that the transition to new health care reform programs will be slower than we want. Case managers and other staff at community clinics are already overwhelmed by the flood of clients they see every day; it will be challenging to help thousands more people apply for new ACA programs, connect them important resources, and ensure they’re receiving optimal HIV care. New federal funding for ACA enrollment staff will hopefully help with this task.

Moreover, the HIV community needs to better prepare itself for health reform programs. Most importantly, clinics should aggressively reach out to new Medicaid and private insurance programs to make sure they are part of these new programs, and the insurance companies must do their part and enroll HIV clinics in their networks.  Clients can’t be stripped of medical options because their doctor doesn’t accept their insurance.

Establishing the right enrollment and service systems under CountyCare is paramount for people living with HIV. We have a unique opportunity to improve health care access and services for individuals with this disease. Getting this right is imperative, so we can learn from this rollout and help tens of thousands of other Illinoisans affected by HIV, who will have new insurance options in 2014 when the ACA goes into full swing.

The new report from AFC also details recommendations for service organizations, case managers, government officials, and people with HIV, so that all can take full advantage of CountyCare. It’s available at www.aidschicago.org/countycare.


David Ernesto Munar
AIDS Foundation of Chicago
(This post was originally published on the AIDS Foundation of Chicago blog).

Clarifying, Eliminating and Enforcing Special Enrollment Periods

 

As the Health Insurance Marketplace grows and matures, we continue to listen and learn to find ways to make it work even better for consumers and those who serve consumers. We know that each year, as the Marketplace evolves, we must seek to continually adapt and refine the way we operate. In addition to continually improving the consumer experience, we also must make changes to keep the Marketplace vibrant, stable and strong.

The fundamental principles to achieve this are simple: the Marketplace must be attractive for consumers, and the Marketplace must be attractive for insurance companies that offer plans on it.

Consumers need to know that affordable options are available and that insurers are competing for their business. We know that consumers want affordable health care and value the insurance they’re finding at the Health Insurance Marketplaces. This Open Enrollment we’ve seen a significant influx of new consumers – many of them young – making it clear there is still a large untapped market for insurance companies to serve.

The Marketplace must also be attractive to insurers, so that they make quality plans available at affordable prices and continue to drive innovation, and so consumers can find plans that meet their health and budget needs. Building an attractive Marketplace starts with establishing a predictable, stable set of rules that help to keep the risk pool balanced. As the Marketplace grows and evolves, we continue to analyze data to understand how our rules are impacting insurers and consumers and to make sure they are working to sustain a stable Marketplace. By having clear rules for how the Marketplace operates and making adjustments when needed, we are creating a more stable rate environment with more affordable plan choices for consumers.

One of the areas we have been reviewing closely is the special enrollment periods we offer. Special enrollment periods are an important way to make sure that people who lose their health insurance during the year or who experience a major life change like getting married or having a child, have the opportunity to enroll in coverage through the Marketplaces. People who experience these qualifying events have the opportunity to enroll in coverage outside of the normal Open Enrollment period from November 1 to January 31, similar to how enrollment works in the employer market. In addition, in the first two years of the Marketplace, a number of special enrollment periods were created for consumers who were still learning how to enroll in coverage for the first time.

As the Marketplace matures and consumers learn more about how and when to enroll, we continue to review the rules around special enrollment periods in order to keep them fair for consumers and for issuers. We are taking initial steps in adjusting how special enrollment periods work – and will continue to make further adjustments in the future based on what we learn from continued monitoring and analysis of special enrollment period usage and compliance.

The action we are taking today announces the elimination of several unnecessary special enrollment periods, clarifies the definitions of other special enrollment periods, and provides stronger enforcement so that special enrollment periods serve the purpose for which they are intended and do not provide unintended loopholes.

Eliminating Unnecessary Special Enrollment Periods

Last month, we announced that the Tax Season special enrollment period will no longer be offered. Today we are announcing the elimination of six other special enrollment periods that are no longer needed. Just as the Marketplace evolves, so too does consumer behavior. The rules we use to operate the Marketplace need to keep up with these changes. As such, special enrollment periods are no longer available for: 

• Consumers who enrolled with too much in advance payments of the premium tax credit because of a redundant or duplicate policy

• Consumers who were affected by an error in the treatment of Social Security Income for tax dependents
• Lawfully present non-citizens that were affected by a system error in determination of their advance payments of the premium tax credit
• Lawfully present non-citizens with incomes below 100% FPL who experienced certain processing delays
• Consumers who were eligible for or enrolled in COBRA and not sufficiently informed about their coverage options
• Consumers who were previously enrolled in the Pre-Existing Condition Health Insurance Program

We’ll continue to monitor how special enrollment periods are used and may make changes in the future as Marketplace systems and operations continue to improve.

Clarifying Eligibility

Our review of current special enrollment periods also showed that some of the eligibility guidelines need to be further clarified so consumers can understand the intent and so they will not be abused. Today we are updating guidance to more clearly define the special enrollment period that is available to consumers who permanently moved, and as a result, gained access to new health plans. Specifically, we clarify that this special enrollment period cannot be used for a short-term or temporary move where the consumer doesn’t plan to stay in their new location, including situations in which a consumer is admitted to a hospital for treatment in a different area. This clarification is intended to assist consumers, brokers, issuers and others in understanding who is eligible for this special enrollment period.

If we identify other areas where the rules for special enrollment periods are unclear, we will issue additional clarifying guidance as needed.

Enforcing the Rules

Finally, we will take steps to make sure that consumers understand and comply with the rules. We will conduct an assessment of plan selections that are made through certain special enrollment periods to evaluate whether consumers properly accessed coverage. Our program integrity team will pull samples of consumer records nationally and may request additional information from some consumers or take other steps to validate that consumers properly qualified for these special enrollment periods. The findings from the assessment will help us to inform future policy and operational improvements to enhance program integrity. Additional details will be provided in the coming weeks.

We will also emphasize more strongly to applicants that the law requires that consumers provide accurate information to the Marketplace, and they may be subject to penalties under federal law if they intentionally provide false or untrue information.

There is still time for consumers who need coverage to enroll during the Open Enrollment period that ends on January 31st. While there will continue to be special enrollment periods for people who lose coverage mid-year or experience other life changes, this channel for enrollment will not be available for the vast majority of consumers. For example, special enrollment periods are not allowed for people who choose to remain uninsured and then decide they need health insurance when they get sick.  Consumers who do not currently have other health insurance coverage should enroll through the Marketplace now during these last two weeks of Open Enrollment, to make sure they have coverage if they get sick and to avoid the tax penalty.

This was originally posted on the CMS Blog.
Kevin Counihan
CEO
Health Insurance Marketplace

Key Lessons from Health & Medicine’s Budget Forum

 

On January 15, 2016, Health & Medicine hosted a meeting of The Chicago Forum for Justice in forum proceedings notes as a reference guide for the forum’s content.

Our notes are written as a summary and while they can’t fully capture the presentations, videos of each of the five mini panels are available on the event webpage, as are slides from speakers who used them in their presentations. We thank CAN TV for recording, editing, and sharing videos of the forum, extending the potential impact of our panelists’ presentations.

We hope these notes will be useful for advocates and policymakers seeking to understand issues related to the budget, think about potential revenue solutions, and consider strategies, framing, and narratives likely to advance progress.  Health & Medicine will be convening a small group soon to review the forum proceedings and discuss next steps for our work on this critical area, which we’ll share on our website.

While the budget problems and solutions are more complex than this, here are some main points that have emerged for me from conversations and from the presentations and discussion at the conference:

Illinois lacks sufficient revenue, which represents a structural budget problem, priming the State to have recurring budget shortages and hampering our ability to provide Illinoisans with the public services they need and want, thus harming the health of the public, and disproportionately harming vulnerable communities.

The structural budget problems have several potential revenue solutions, including a progressive income tax structure and efforts to ensure corporations pay their fair share, both of which are more equitable than our current system and would better grow revenue in proportion to the size of Illinois’ economy.

State elected officials are collectively responsible for passing a budget and using a selection of revenue solutions that will help preserve and improve the vital health, social, and education programs and services that support people’s health and Illinois’ economy.  Inaction on the structural revenue shortages that Illinois faces is an unacceptable abdication of the governing duties our public officials share.

Of course, these salient points are based on a range of facts and history about Illinois’ taxes and budgets, beyond the scope of this post.  A significant amount of such relevant detail is covered in the forum proceedings notes, as well as the slides and videos on the event webpage (linked to above).

Also, related to this subject, Health & Medicine’s Executive Director, Margie Schaps, had two letters focused on Illinois’ budget published in the last couple of weeks:

Consider the long-term consequences Regarding the recent layoffs at Lutheran Social Services of Illinois published in Crain’s Chicago Business
Illinois needs a budget. Governor Rauner, let’s get it done.  A response to Governor Rauner’s State of the State Address in the Chicago Tribune


Wesley Epplin
Director of Health Equity
Health & Medicine Policy Research Group

Consumer Alert for Individuals and Employer Groups Insured by Land of Lincoln Health

Land of Lincoln Health insurance coverage will end for consumers as of October 1, 2016.  Land of Lincoln is no longer offering health plans for individuals on the Federal Health Insurance Marketplace (HealthCare.gov). Land of Lincoln has also stopped offering health plans for employer groups. Please note: it is very important that until October 1, 2016, consumers and employers must continue paying premiums.

Below is an excerpt from the Land of Lincoln Health website instructing consumers and employer groups on coverage options:

IL Department of Insurance Director Dowling has been working with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for purposes of having a special enrollment period opened in order to allow individual insureds an opportunity to obtain replacement coverage during 2016 on the Federal Health Insurance Marketplace (HealthCare.gov). CMS will provide Land of Lincoln individual insureds with a special enrollment period (“SEP”) due to a loss of Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC).

Under this SEP,individual insureds have two options:

    Individuals may report their upcoming loss of MEC to the Marketplace from August 2, 2016 through September 30, 2016 and enroll in a new plan for coverage commencing on October 1, 2016; or
    Individuals may report their recent loss of MEC to the Marketplace from October 1, 2016 through November 29, 2016 and enroll in a new plan for coverage commencing on the first day of the following month.

It is important that individual insureds take note that if they enroll in a new plan on the Federal Health Insurance Marketplace prior to their loss of MEC they will have no gap in coverage or any financial assistance they’re receiving, but that if they wait until after they’ve lost MEC to enroll in a new plan there will be a gap in their health insurance coverage and any financial assistance they’re eligible for.

Employer groups should work with their agent or broker to explore their options. If you are an employer group that enrolled in a Land of Lincoln plan on the open market, please work with your agent or broker. Questions for Small Business Health Options Program (“SHOP”) customers can be directed to the call center for the SHOP Marketplace,which is part of HealthCare.gov, at 1-800-706-7893 (TTY711) Mon-Fri, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. (ET). Agents and brokers may also use this number.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT LAND OF LINCOLN INSUREDS CONTINUE TO RECEIVE HEALTHCARE SERVICES WITHOUT INTERRUPTION FROM LAND OF LINCOLN PROVIDERS. PROVIDERS WILL BE PAID FOR SERVICES DELIVERED TO LAND OF LINCOLN INSUREDS UNDER THEIR PROVIDER AGREEMENTS. CLAIMS FOR SERVICES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED AS USUAL FOR PAYMENT. PROVIDERS SHOULD NOT REFUSE SERVICE TO INSUREDS.
If you are denied services from a Land of Lincoln provider, please notify the Illinois Department of Insurance. Please call the Consumer Assistance Hotline at (866) 445-5364, and then submit your complaint in writing. Complaints may be submitted in the following ways:

    Online at http://insurance.illinois.gov/Complaints/file_complaint.asp
    By email at consumer_complaints@ins.state.il.us.
    By fax to (217) 558-2083
    By mail to 320 W. Washington Street, Springfield, IL 62767

Keep your originals and send only copies of information. For a printed copy of the Department’s complaint form, contact the Consumer Assistance Hotline at (866) 445-5364. When your complaint is received, a file number will be assigned and you will be sent written notification of that number. Please refer to the complaint file number when you call or write to the Department. To read the entire Land of Lincoln Health notice, visit their website and read their alert.