“Obamacare’s implementation in October 2013 came with the launch of HealthCare.gov, the federal health insurance exchange.
Just six people successfully signed up for health insurance on HealthCare.gov on Oct. 1, 2013, because of massive glitches and failures with the site. In the months that followed the disastrous launch, the Republican-led House of Representatives held numerous hearings to determine why the Obama administration decided to launch the website.
The Department of Health and Human Services fired CGI Federal, which was originally tasked with building HealthCare.gov, after the website’s launch and signed a new contract with Accenture to rebuild the exchange.
Though the Obama administration hasn’t formally said how much HealthCare.gov cost the taxpayers, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said last May that the website cost $834 million. Similarly, a report from the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General put the cost of the exchange at $800 million.
An analysis by Bloomberg Government, though, put the total cost at $2.1 billion. Bloomberg Government took into account budgetary costs for the Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies, as well as contracts reworked to pay for the website.” - In 5 Charts, How Obamacare Has Worked the Past 6 Years, daily signal.com, 03/23/2016
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/23/in-five-charts-how-obamacare-has-worked-past-six-years/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonu6rPdO%2FhmjTEU5z16u8pW6e%2Bhokz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcRhNL3YDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D
“The insurance industry responds that critics are confusing legitimate cost-control with bias. Some state regulators, however, say there's reason to be concerned about policies that shift costs to patients and narrow their choices of hospitals and doctors.
With open enrollment for 2015 three months away, the Obama administration is being pressed to enforce the Affordable Care Act's anti-discrimination provisions. Some regulations have been issued; others are pending after more than four years.
More than 300 patient advocacy groups recently wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell to complain about some insurer tactics that "are highly discriminatory against patients with chronic health conditions and may ... violate the (law's) nondiscrimination provisions."
Among the groups were the AIDS Institute, the American Lung Association, Easter Seals, the Epilepsy Foundation, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Kidney Foundation and United Cerebral Palsy. All supported the law.
Coverage of expensive drugs tops their concerns.
The advocates also say they are disappointed by how difficult it's proved for consumers to get a full picture of plans sold on the new insurance exchanges. Digging is often required to learn crucial details such as drugs covered, exact copayments and which doctors and hospitals are in the network.”
“Much of the concern is about coverage for prescription drugs. Also worrisome are the narrow networks of hospitals and doctors that insurers are using to keep premiums down. Healthy people generally shop for lower premiums, while people with health problems look for access to specialists and the best hospitals.”
“Some plans are requiring patients to pay 30 percent or more for drugs that go for several thousand dollars a month. HIV drugs, certain cancer medications, and multiple sclerosis drugs are among them.
Although the law sets an overall annual limit on what patients are required to pay, the initial medication cost can be a shock.”
“The insurance industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans says there's no discrimination because patients have many options on the insurance exchanges. Gold and platinum plans feature lower cost-sharing, but have higher premiums. Standard silver plans generally require patients to pay a greater share of medical bills, but some have fairly robust drug coverage.
"There are plans on the exchanges that are right for people who have these health conditions," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the group.” - Groups claim insurance discrimination in new forms, MSNnews, 08/17/2014
Upon further review, the purchase of health insurance upon the ACA exchanges was advertised as being much like, if not exactly like, the experience consumers have when shopping at Amazon. Implicit in the advertised mantra was consumers with great knowledge in the field of health insurance. Stated alternatively, the implicit argument is that consumers when shopping at Amazon, with great knowledge of blue jeans, shoes, toasters and microwave ovens also have the same basic knowledge in health insurance.
Price really is a signal. Yep, that platinum colored microwave seems nice, but that silver microwave is less expensive. But the bronze microwave is cheap!
Total price as a signal, that is, premium outlay, maximum out-of-pocket (MOOP), doctor office co-pay, specialist co-pay, drug co-pay, network width and breath …..that was merely a shopping experience like Amazon. Total price was considered every time, all the time: Consumer knowledge was king!
Maybe not so much, huh?
Link to the entire MSN article appears below:
http://news.msn.com/us/groups-claim-insurance-discrimination-in-new-forms
“The Health and Human Services report, released this week, claims that of the 5.4 million people who enrolled in ObamaCare through the federal HealthCare.gov site, 4.7 million got tax subsidies to offset the cost of their premiums.
It goes on to say that once you factor in the subsidy, the average premium was $82 a month. "Consumers have more choices, and they're paying less for their premiums," boasted new HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell.
That claim itself is dubious. Even with the subsidies, ObamaCare is hardly cheap.”
“After looking over the HHS report, Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, concluded that while ObamaCare might be a bargain for low-income families who can get private insurance for very little money, it's "not attractive to working-class and middle-class families and individuals."
The other fact conveniently left out of the HHS report is that the cost of ObamaCare to taxpayers is far higher than expected.
Early last year, the Congressional Budget Office projected that ObamaCare's tax credits would cost $15 billion in its first year. One year later, it had cut that number down to $13 billion, and then lowered it again in April to $10 billion.
But using the administration's enrollment and subsidy numbers, it turns out that the subsidy costs just for those who signed up through the federal exchange will top $11 billion.
The Los Angeles Times reports that if these subsidy numbers hold true for the 14 state-run exchanges, ObamaCare's first-year subsidy costs will climb to $16.5 billion.
Some of the increase is due to the higher-than-expected sign-ups. But a big cause was the fact that a larger share of enrollees got subsidies than the CBO expected. And the average tax credit was bigger. The CBO had assumed the average credit would be about $222 a month. The actual number was $264 — about 19% higher.” - Surprise: ObamaCare Costs More Than Predicted, Investors Business Daily, 06/18/2014
Link to the entire article appear below:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/061814-705269-surprise-obamacare-is-costing-more-than-predicted.htm
