Impact of ruling against individual mandate examined

Monday, August 15th, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

August 15, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) Fri, Aug 12, 2011 — An appeals court dealt a blow to President Barack Obama’s health care law on Friday, leaving a mark on constitutional law, the health care industry, U.S. politics and U.S. states.

The court ruled as “unconstitutional” the law’s requirement that individuals buy health insurance or pay a fine, but upheld the rest of the law passed by Congress last year. Here is a look at what it means on four fronts:

THE LAW — Almost everyone agrees at least one of the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the sweeping reform law, known as the Affordable Care Act, will ultimately reach the Supreme Court, probably next year. This decision shows one way the highest court may rule, by maintaining the bulk of the reforms, but throwing out the so-called “individual mandate” making health care a legal requirement for all Americans.

HEALTH CARE — Throwing out the individual mandate could influence how the health care industry approaches the reforms in the law, especially when considering how to price insurance policies. Without the individual mandate, insurance premiums would likely rise. The mandate had guaranteed a large and steady pool of insurance purchasers.

U.S. POLITICS — The ruling will likely embolden conservatives who derisively call the health care reforms “Obamacare.” Some have attributed the huge Republican gains in the November 2010 congressional elections to voter discontent over the law, Obama’s signature piece of domestic policy. The issue is certain to feature in the campaign for the November 2012 presidential election when the president will seek a second term. Should the Supreme Court rule the same as the appeals court, Obama, a Democrat, could try to persuade Congress to pass a “legislative fix” for the individual mandate’s structure, but he would face a tough time getting it through a Congress where Democrats no longer hold a majority in both houses as they did when the law passed in March 2010.

THE STATES — Friday’s decision was in a lawsuit filed by 26 of the 50 states, which are charged with carrying out a bulk of the health care reforms. Along with worrying about the costs of implementation, the states say the law usurps their rights. Earlier this year, states that had criticized the law, such as Missouri, adopted an attitude of “if you can’t beat them, join them.” They began setting up state-run exchanges for health insurance and moving ahead on implementation in the hopes of influencing the reforms and limiting the reach of the law. But of late, they have taken a harder line, with Kansas recently sending back to the federal government a grant it had received to create an exchange. This ruling, at a level just below the Supreme Court, could cause them to further resist carrying out the law.

(Editing by Howard Goller)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters.

Are Electric Cars Safer in a Crash?

Friday, August 5th, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

You have likely seen electric cars either on the road or advertised.  What happens in the real world when on of these vehicles is in a crash?  Are they safer than a traditional gas powered vehicle?

See what the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has to say here: http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx/releases/pr042611

Booster Seat Safety

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

Looking for the right booster seat, and want to make sure your child is safe in the booster seat you are using?

This link will tell you.  http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/boosters/default.html

Birth Control Recommendation Will Have No Impact For Now

Monday, August 1st, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

You may wondering about a recent recommendation that birth control and some other services approved by the FDA be covered 100% as a preventive care under health care reform. This recommendation received a lot of coverage in the press, including stories in the Los Angeles Timesand Indianapolis Business Journal. 

Some headlines misled readers to think that this coverage is required now. It is not. It is simply a recommendation from an Institute of Medicine panel, developed at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The health care reform law calls for coverage of certain preventive care and screenings in guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration department of HHS. The department will be considering the recommendations from the panel as it develops more guidelines.    

If the recommendation does become law, steps need to happen:

• HHS would need to add these services to the list of preventive care required. If this happens, it may be part of the guidance that we expected to be released in August 2011.
• Plans would then be given a year to follow the new rules. The rules would apply to all non-grandfathered plans, including ASO plans. 

If you have any questions, please call us at 242-7526 or email nikki@ipagj.com .

Child Only Health Insurance Coverage

Monday, August 1st, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

It’s here!  Today is the first day of the open enrollment period for child-only health plans. 

Why do you care?   If you are looking for a health plan to cover only your child up to age 19, you can only purchase that policy a couple of times per year.  NOW is one of those times.

If you need information, please call me at 242-7526 or email me at nikki@ipagj.com.  If you already have info, you can apply online here.