I'll bet you didn't see that coming (and neither did I).
"Health law may squeeze Mass." by Robert Weisman | Globe Staff, March 16, 2013
State business and government leaders say federal rules stemming from the national health care overhaul threaten to drive up insurance costs in Massachusetts, a state widely viewed as a model for the sweeping legislation signed by President Obama in 2010.
Under the new regulations, Massachusetts health insurers will have to set premium rates for small businesses and individuals once a year rather than quarterly, as they do now. The rates also would be issued six to 18 months prior to taking effect. Insurers say that means premiums would have to be more expensive to hedge against unforeseen events — such as an influenza outbreak — that may crop up before rates can be adjusted again.
Oh, government released another bug again, huh? I guess banks are the only ones who don't have to hedge bets. They just get bailed out.
The change, which affects about 720,000 small business employees and self-employed workers, is meant to bring Massachusetts in line with national policies governing how and when insurance is purchased.
Great, the long arm of the federal government f***ing things up.
“It’s federal bureaucrats who have no idea how the Massachusetts market works,” said Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, a trade group for state health insurers. “There will be a major disruption in the small group market.”
For some in Massachusetts, the new US rules — handed down by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Feb. 27 — are another affront to a state that pioneered expanded access to health care and has been working to rein in costs....
“Massachusetts has passed a series of laws in a progression to truly address health care costs,” said David A. Shore, president-elect of the Massachusetts Association of Health Underwriters, an organization of insurance brokers. “Now the federal government, which calls Massachusetts the linchpin for their health care reform, is taking such a general approach to their rules that they’re sweeping away everything Massachusetts has done.”
In a letter to Governor Deval Patrick on Tuesday, representatives of a dozen business and professional groups complained about the new federal regulations and asked him to seek a waiver from some of the requirements. They wrote that the state “stands to be penalized for decisions” it made in shaping the Massachusetts overhaul years ago.
I guess we are not the model.
Federal officials believe critics who argue premiums will rise because of new rules on buying insurance are ignoring key parts of the national plan that will lower premiums for some — such as subsidized insurance for low-income residents that will be available online.
“The health care law will help bring down costs and save money for American families and businesses,” said a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Setting rates once a year gives consumers more certainty about what their premiums will be all year long.”
The standoff over the rules has put Massachusetts supporters of the national health care law in a difficult position. They are frustrated by the lack of flexibility from Washington, but also do not want to be too critical at time when the law remains under attack from opponents.
The federal overhaul is “a good law that brings many benefits to people both here in Massachusetts and across the country,” said Barbara Anthony, the Massachusetts undersecretary of consumer affairs and business regulation.
For example, Anthony said, the state’s health care system has gained financially from the US law, receiving more than $1 billion to expand subsidized insurance to 325,000 low-income residents and tens of millions more in everything from innovative care grants to refunds from health plans that spent too much on administration and too little on claims.
Still, she said, “We’re trying to educate [federal officials] about the uniqueness of the Massachusetts marketplace and some of the unintended consequences some of their rules have here.”
Josh Archambault, director of health care policy for the Pioneer Institute, a Boston public policy research group, said the federal government’s “one-size-fits-all” approach is misguided. But he noted that Massachusetts officials have criticized representatives of other states that balked at provisions of the national law they say will boost their costs. “Those states have an equal standing to make that same argument,” Archambault suggested.
Massachusetts officials consider the campaign to control health costs as the next stage of a state overhaul that began with the 2006 law leading to near-universal access to insurance....
Yeah, I have access to insurance, but I can't afford to use it.
--more--"
Also see: ACA premium sticker shock could fuel foes
Premium prices might TRIPLE?
UPDATE:
"Mass. businesses don’t like insurance decision; Leaders sought exemption from new federal rules; instead US grants state a 3-year phase-in period" by Robert Weisman | Globe Staff, April 09, 2013
Massachusetts business leaders say they are disappointed with a federal decision to allow the state to phase in parts of the national health care law over three years, maintaining it doesn’t do enough to provide relief from expected insurance premium hikes.
After state officials earlier this year objected to new rules stemming from the US health care overhaul — arguing they would drive up costs for small businesses and their employees — federal health officials told their Massachusetts counterparts Friday the state could take until 2016 to fully implement rules to bring it into compliance with national standards.
But business leaders said Monday that the federal decision, while welcome, fell short of the waiver they had sought for regulations that conflicted with Massachusetts’ 2006 health care law, widely viewed as the model for the US Affordable Care Act.
“We had hoped for a complete waiver,” said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, who had complained US rules would eliminate state “rating factors” that allow premium discounts for small business cooperatives that included wellness initiatives.
“This is just a way of delaying and mitigating the pain,” Hurst said.
Kristen Lepore, vice president of government affairs for the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said the decision to allow Massachusetts more time to implement federal rules is only a temporary fix.
“There’s no legitimate reason for the federal government to eliminate our rating factors,” Lepore said. “We don’t know why we aren’t being given the flexibility to do what’s already working here.”
Related: Inaugurating Obama's Dictatorship
I'd say that is not legitimate.
****************************
The phase-in period looks “like a pig wearing lipstick to many small businesses,” said Josh Archambault, health care policy director for the Pioneer Institute, a public policy research group in Boston....
Barbara Anthony, the Massachusetts undersecretary for consumer affairs and business regulation, said, “We’re pleased to see their understanding of the uniqueness of our market by allowing the phase-in period.”
--more--"
