It’s pretty obvious that lower rates are good news for all New Yorkers, particularly women who have a harder time affording health care and are more likely than men to avoid needed health care services because of cost, but this news should also convince the House to vote down the effort to delay the individual responsibility provision. Read more »
The Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies just approved a funding plan for those agencies in Fiscal Year 2014. The full Committee will consider the bill tomorrow.
During the Subcommittee’s consideration of the bill, Senators voiced their appreciation of the bipartisan effort and conversations leading up to the bill. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chair of the Subcommittee, expressed her commitment to get the bill on the Senate floor saying “If we move this bill, America and the people who live in it will be in a better place.” Senator Mikulski explained that the appropriations bill laid the groundwork for expanding opportunity in America through empowering students, investing in education and getting people to work in the 21st century.
Early Childhood Education: A $1.43 billion increase for Head Start, including Early Head Start - Child Care Partnerships, plus a $171 million increase for existing Head Start and Early Head Start programs; a $176 million increase for the Child Care and Development Block Grants, including $110 million for new quality improvement grants and $66 million for child care assistance as well as $750 million for Preschool Development Grants.
Implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA): $5.2 billion to the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services to implement the Affordable Care Act, an increase from $3.9 billion in FY 2013. The ACA will help nearly 30 million Americans, including nearly 15 million women, to access high-quality, affordable health insurance.
Mental Health: $40 million for Project AWARE State grants, which will focus on making schools safer and connecting young people with mental health services, and $40 million in new funding to address shortages in the behavioral health workforce.
Yesterday's surprise announcement that the Obama Administration is postponing implementation of the health reform law's requirement that firms with more than 50 workers provide affordable, comprehensive health insurance or pay a small penalty set off a flurry of commentary and speculation. Much of this reaction focused on how the decision will affect larger employers and their workers — that is, very little — and others weighed in on the political implications of this move. The biggest impact on large employers is if they do not provide the requisite health insurance they will not have to pay the penalty for one more year. But little analysis and commentary considered what this decision means for low-wage workers' access to health insurance exchanges, nor the outreach and education challenges it creates.
With or without this postponement, beginning January 1, many workers whose employers do not offer coverage, or whose employer offers coverage that does not meet minimum standards for premium affordability and sufficient benefits, will qualify for help with premiums and cost-sharing for coverage they purchase in the health insurance exchange operating in their state. These marketplaces will offer participants a choice among fully-vetted health plans that meet state and federal standards. Workers with good employer-sponsored health insurance won't be able to receive subsidies to purchase coverage in the exchange, but those workers without access to good employer-sponsored coverage, or coverage that exceeds 9.5 percent of their incomes, will qualify for this help.
Today, low-wage workers are more likely to pay a larger share of the premium for employer-sponsored coverage than workers with higher earnings. Read more »
Today marks the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Court upheld the constitutionality of two major provisions of the ACA: the individual mandate and the Medicaid eligibility expansion. However, the Court made one very significant change to the terms of the Medicaid provision: It held that the federal government could not condition a state's current federal Medicaid funding on participation in the coverage expansion, thereby giving states the choice to opt-out of covering more people through Medicaid.
Today, Medicaid programs in all states cover low-income individuals with disabilities, seniors, children, pregnant women, and parents. But federal money provided through the ACA will enable states to reach people younger than 65 whose income is below 138 percent of the federal poverty guideline ($15,856 annually for an individual; $26, 951 for a family of three in 2012).
For the first time, low-income childless adults will have access to Medicaid coverage in many states.
Strong federal protections against sex discrimination exist in the workplace and in schools, and have existed, for sixty and forty years, respectively. Of course, there’s a lot of work to do to enforce those protections and build on them. In health care, no such broad antidiscrimination law existed.
You may need to re-read that. People generally do a double-take when they hear there has been no big prohibition against sex discrimination in health care until just 3 years ago. “Did I really read that right??” You did.
We needed a Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education program, for health care. Finally, now, we got one!
For one, Section 1557 expands existing protections against discrimination in the health care area based on race, color, national origin, disability, and age. Specifically, the law protects individuals from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, gender identity, and sex stereotypes in:
the health programs or activities of recipients of federal financial assistance, like all operations of a hospital or the health plans of entities that receive federal grants;
federally-administered programs, such as Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan; or
any entity established under Title I of the ACA, including the health insurance exchanges being established in the states—the places people will go to compare their options for and purchase health insurance
Or, put more simply: the law’s reach is broad and impacts virtually all aspects of health care. Read more »
Did you know that until 2010, no federal law provided protection against sex discrimination in health care? What?!
Section 1557 is an antidiscrimination provision in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that includes the first federal protection against sex discrimination in health care. For those familiar with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education programs, Section 1557 is like a Title IX for health care.
Potter has spent weeks talking up in the media his opposition to the contraceptive coverage benefit. He’s stated that he opposes the contraceptive coverage benefit because he questions “what gives [the federal government] the right to tell [him] that [he has] to [cover birth control].” But here’s the thing: he’s admitted he would not have cared if it was “Jack Daniels or birth control”—it’sthe principle. Potter’s admitted that the root issue—“the beginning and ending of the story”—is the government trying to tell him what to do. As he said, “[he’s] got more interest in good quality long underwear than [he has] in birth control pills.”
Today, during oral arguments for the preliminary injunction, his tune may change. Contrary to his many statements, his lawyers will try to convince a Michigan district court that Mr. Potter’s religious beliefs motivate his attempt to deny his employees (and their families) the comprehensive insurance they are entitled to. That’s because the claims Potter is making require a violation of religious exercise. But proving religious beliefs are at issue won’t be an easy task. When asked what particular religious belief led him to oppose the benefit, Potter said “Well, there isn’t any one particular religious belief… I find it hard to get my head around the question.” Read more »
The law directly conflicted with the federal health care law’s contraceptive coverage requirement, which requires all new health insurance plans to cover contraceptives with no co-pay. In his announcement, the Attorney General aptly stated, “the attempt to deny contraceptive coverage to women in Missouri is just plain foolishness” and “cannot be supported by case law or sound policy.” Read more »
The new health care law known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allocates money for each state to cover more uninsured people through Medicaid. It’s a great deal for states, since these federal dollars will cover 100% of costs in the first few years and will ultimately pay for 90% of the yearly costs of this coverage. But because last year’s Supreme Court decision made accepting these funds optional, in states that choose to turn down the money, some people will earn too little to qualify for tax credits to purchase coverage in the new health insurance marketplace, yet won’t be able to obtain coverage through Medicaid. In other words, these people will fall into a “coverage gap” and will get no help toward affording health coverage, while some people who make more money will still get help.
A study published in the journal Women’s Health Issues last week highlighted a problem many women have confronted over the years when getting their birth control: even when you have insurance, the costs for contraception can be unaffordable. The study showed that, in 2010, on average women with private insurance paid $10 for a one-month supply of generic pills, $112 for an IUD, and $116 for an implant. The study also found that costs varied depending on your insurer, with some women having to pay more than $17 a month for generic pills, $305 for an IUD, or $308 for an implant. On top of these high costs, the study found that between 2007 and 2010, insurance companies shifted to women costs for long-acting contraceptives, like IUDs and implants. In 2007, a woman paid 13.8% of the cost of an IUD, whereas in 2010 she paid 17.5%.
If these price tags have you confused, there is hope. As I’ve mentioned on this blog before, the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as “Obamacare,” contains a provision that requires health insurers to provide coverage of the full-range of FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing. Read more »