Enhancing the Patient-Centeredness of State Health Insurance Markets State Progress Reports

Transcription

1 Enhancing the Patient-Centeredness of State Health Insurance Markets State Progress Reports ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS 1

2 Founded in 1920, the NHC is the only organization that brings together all segments of the health community to provide a united and effective voice for the more than 133 million people living with chronic diseases and disabilities and their family caregivers. Made up of more than 100 national health-related organizations and businesses, its core membership includes the nation s leading patient advocacy organizations, which control its governance. Other members include professional and membership associations, nonprofit organizations with an interest in health, and major pharmaceutical, health insurance, medical device, and biotechnology companies. The National Health Council State Progress Reports are made possible with the generous support from the initiative s premier sponsor, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Additional support is provided by: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals Celgene Corporation Genentech Johnson & Johnson 2 ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS

3 A Message for Members and Partners / The National Health Council (NHC) and its members are committed supporters of Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions that provide the greatest benefit to people with chronic diseases and disabilities. Since the passage of the ACA, the NHC has worked to strengthen these protections so that patients can access health insurance that meets both their health and budget needs. As members and partners of the NHC, you and your organizations can help carry this message to state policymakers and regulators. The ACA s insurance market reforms, coverage expansions, and subsidies are significant steps forward for the patient community. However, the successful implementation of these steps relies on states to continue and even expand their role as regulators of their health insurance market. State support is critical to guaranteeing the ACA s goals of high-quality and affordable health care for all. These state Progress Reports illustrate the variability of the patient-centeredness of health insurance markets across states. Members, partners, and the NHC will use these reports to identify states where changes could improve access to coverage and care for patients. These reports also can identify leading states that set best practices for patient-friendly requirements. Remember, the specific reforms that are appropriate to one state may not be the right fit for all states. The goal of these reports is to encourage states to implement a range of reforms in the key areas that will have the most benefit to patients non-discrimination, transparency, oversight, uniformity, and continuity of care. Your actions to move these policies forward can have a lasting effect on the lives of all patients. Background / Exchange Operational Models The ACA established sweeping insurance reforms that included the introduction of health insurance exchanges, where individuals and families can shop for health insurance coverage. While each state has its own exchange, the federal government plays a role in managing exchanges in many states. In general, states followed one of three paths to establish an exchange a state-based exchange, a state-partnership exchange in which the state and federal government share exchange responsibilities, or a federally-facilitated exchange. Each model envisions a different role for states, and, as a result, the federal government. However, the federal government sets basic operating standards for all exchanges. STATE- BASED EXCHANGE STATE PARTNERSHIP EXCHANGE FEDERALLY- FACILITATED EXCHANGE NUMBER OF STATES 16 + DC 6 29 Plan Management Consumer Assistance Eligibility and Enrollment Financial Management State State Federal Federal ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS 3

4 The Role of States Each exchange model relies on states to ensure that plans comply with state insurance laws and to enforce some aspects of the ACA. 1 Therefore, every state has the opportunity to establish additional standards and requirements that ensure patients have access to coverage that meets their needs. Project Purpose / These Progress Reports aim to identify the state-by-state variation in patient friendliness of insurance exchanges to: Promote policies that help protect patients, and Discourage policies that are inconsistent with patient needs. Methodology and Sources / The National Health Council (NHC) works to ensure that the protections put in place by the ACA are implemented in the best interest of patients. As part of these efforts, the NHC prioritizes five key prin ciples of a truly patient-focused insurance market non-discrimination, transparency, oversight, uniformity, and continuity-of-care. Non-discrimination Confirm plan designs do not discriminate or impede access to care, including a provider network that ensures patients can access care when they need it. Transparency Provide access to clear and accurate information for consumers about covered services and costs in exchange plans, including a user-friendly exchange website. State oversight Ensure all exchange plans meet applicable state and federal requirements, including the state s plan management requirements and rate review. Uniformity Create standards to make it easier for patients to compare exchange plans, such as a quality scorecard and standardized plan materials. Continuity of care Broaden sources of coverage and protect patients transitioning between plans, including expanded Medicaid. To understand how insurance markets perform against these priorities, the reports assess each state using a set of metrics. The metrics represent specific, measurable, and actionable goals for each state s insurance market and exchange. States are assigned scores for each metric, based on an evaluation of the state s action or market in relation to its effect on patients: Beneficial scores are assigned to states with policies or insurance market dynamics resulting in better access or choice for patients. Neutral scores are assigned to states without policies that result in better access or choice for patients. Negative scores are assigned to states with policies or insurance market dynamics resulting in reduced access or choice for patients. 1 Five states (Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming) have declined to play any role in oversight or enforcement of the ACA. 4 ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS

5 Then, the Progress Reports compare performance on all metrics within each principle across states, yielding state-by-state assessments for all five principles. This step determines whether states are high-performing, average-performing, or low-performing for each principle. High-Performing Average-Performing Low-Performing The analysis is based on a proprietary database of policy developments for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, maintained by Avalere Health. Progress Reports also reference publicly available resources, cited where applicable. The score for each metric was based on states performance as of January 1, These reports reflect policies in effect for the 2015 exchange market and do not include proposed measures or actions. Additionally, Avalere conducted a focused review of selected topics for state exchange insurance markets, though this assessment is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all legislation and regulations pertaining to states insurance markets. Promising Practices across States / While all states have taken steps to enhance the patient experience, some states have set particularly high standards for patient-centered exchange markets. In fact, the states highlighted below have implemented policies that represent models for other states considering changes to their insurance markets Non-discrimination Since the launch of exchanges, there has been limited federal and state action to examine plan benefits for discrimination. Currently, most states follow guidance from the federal government to ensure that exchange plan benefits are not discriminatory. Some states have enacted measures to limit opportunities for discrimination in the exchanges and to ensure patients have adequate access to services and providers. Washington, an SBE, is a leader in fighting discrimination in the exchange market, receivingbeneficial scores across each non-discrimination metric. Specifically, Washington issued regulations that limit discrimination in exchange plans by setting increased standards for coverage and grant the insurance commissioner broad authority to reject plans with discriminatory benefits. This heightened level of authority allows the state to better protect patients from discriminatory benefits before they come to the market. Additionally, the state also took action to ensure that patients have adequate access to providers, and that under certain conditions in-network costs apply to out-of-network providers. This helps to ensure that patients receive timely and affordable treatment. Further, Washington has several platinum plan choices, giving patients with significant health needs a choice of plans with additional benefits and cost-sharing protections. Montana, an FFE, established a new requirement to ensure that benefit designs do not discriminate or impede access to care for patients. Specifically, the state requires issuers to offer at least one silver, gold, and platinum exchange plan that uses copayments (rather than coinsurance) and that does not subject any drugs to the deductible, including the specialty tier. State efforts to prevent, identify, and mitigate potential discrimination can make a big difference for patients with chronic conditions and disabilities, who rely on the protections afforded by the ACA. ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS 5

6 Transparency In states across the nation, patients have limited access to transparent, easy-to-understand, complete information about the covered services and costs of exchange plans. Most exchange websites, including HealthCare.gov, have links to plan materials, such as the formulary and provider directory. Yet, linked resources are a challenge to navigate, particularly for patients with complex conditions who need to compare the intricate details of plan coverage and costs. In addition, some, but not all, exchanges include decision support tools, such as search tools and out-of-pocket calculators, to help patients navigate different plan choices. While most exchange websites have sort and filter functions, these features do not adequately assist patients in selecting an appropriate plan. Across the country, very few states have taken action to help increase transparency standards around covered services and costs of exchange plans. This challenges patients as they are trying to make informed plan selections. Maryland, an SBE, is trailblazing a path for transparency standards among exchange plans. First, the state s exchange website features one decision support tool a provider search engine that helps patients chose a plan that includes their doctor. Additionally, the state requires plan documents to include specific information. For example, formularies must include the tier placement and cost sharing for each drug covered by the plan. Also, when issuers file their plans with the state, the documentation must include a list of medicines covered under the plan s medical benefit. State Oversight State oversight of exchange plans is critical to ensuring a patient-centered market. Some states enhance the oversight of the plans offered on exchanges by negotiating with carriers regarding the number of product offerings or requiring plans to offer more than silver and gold metal level plans. Other states use the rate review process to ensure that plan premiums reflect the benefits offered and that any increase in premium from year to year is justified. In most instances, well-regulated insurance markets attract a healthy number of carriers offering exchange plans, which increases competition and choice for patients. These types of measures ensure that exchange plans meet applicable requirements and that the market is competitive, allowing patients to have more options when selecting coverage. Massachusetts, an SBE with the distinction of offering the first health insurance exchange in the country, has long acted to ensure the state has effective oversight of exchange plans. The state is considered an active purchaser, meaning the exchange negotiates with insurers, chooses which carriers can offer exchange plans, and sets criteria for participating plans. For example, Massachusetts has twelve carriers in the exchange, and each of these carriers is required to offer plans at all four metal levels, ensuring that patients have a broad set of options from which to select a plan that best meets their needs. Michigan, an FFE, also has taken notable steps to have adequate oversight of exchange plans. The state requires issuers to standardize offerings inside and outside of the exchange, which unifies and stabilizes both markets and ensures that patients might be equally served by plans in either market. Uniformity States have acted to make it easier for patients to compare exchange plans. Some SBEs have standardized the benefit designs for plans at all metal levels creating uniform cost-sharing structures for all benefits across all plans at each metal level. Six SBEs California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have standardized exchange plans in this way. Other states have taken less intensive approaches to improve plan comparisons, either by establishing plan quality rating systems or by standardizing plan materials to follow a particular template. 6 ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS

7 California, an SBE, has led other states in its efforts to improve the comparability of exchange plans. Key protections in the state include the standardized benefit designs across all metal levels, including the cost-sharing reduction versions of silver plans that are available to people with limited income. The state does not allow any non-standard plans in the exchange, which is unique among states with standardized plans. These requirements mean that all people enrolled in the same metal level plan in the state encounter the same cost sharing for the same benefits; in effect, it levels the playing field. California has implemented a quality rating system that assigns plans up to four stars using the results of consumer surveys. Finally, the state requires plans to update their formularies monthly and is developing a standard template required for plan formularies, beginning in Continuity of Care Actions to ensure continuity-of-care between plans or types of coverage can help patients maintain access during transition period. For example, when patients enroll in a new exchange plan for the following plan year or when eligibility for Medicaid or subsidized exchange coverage shifts, patients are at risk for problems accessing care during the change in coverage. In fact, the Medicaid expansion is itself an opportunity for states to expand coverage to low-income individuals who cannot qualify for exchange subsidies. Other states offer enhanced premium subsidies beyond assistance offered from the federal government or established bridge plans to help individuals whose income is on the border between Medicaid and subsidized exchange eligibility. Bridge plans are a type of health insurance option for people whose eligibility for Medicaid and exchange coverage might shift from year to year. Some states are creating these plans as a more stable option for patients to ensure they have consistent access to coverage and care. Delaware, an SPE, created transition periods for people whose eligibility for public programs changes, including those moving from Medicaid into exchange plans. The requirements allow people to access prescriptions for 60 days and medical treatments for 90 days to ensure patients can maintain their treatment plans while changing plans or sources of coverage. Vermont, an SBE, funds cost-sharing reduction subsidies for a larger group of exchange enrollees than the federally funded program. The expanded population includes individuals and families with income between 250% and 300% of the federal poverty level, expanding the population of people who are eligible for this extra financial assistance in the state. Areas for Actions / Following the first full year of exchanges, some states have emerged as leaders in implementing patient-centered standards and reforms. However, there is more work left to do. Given the challenges leading up to exchange implementation and the Medicaid expansion, some states prioritized operational and technical readiness over patient-friendly tools and standards. Now that HealthCare.gov and most SBE websites are operating effectively, it is important for states to begin to turn their attention to ensuring that all people have access to coverage and care that meets their needs. Opportunities exist for patient advocates to work with states to improve the patient-friendliness of their insurance markets in the coming years. NHC partners may consider the following three issues as they develop their advocacy plans for the 2016 and 2017 plan years. ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS 7

8 State and Federal Considerations / These reports identify states creating some of the nation s most patient-friendly insurance markets as leaders that can help to pave the way for other states. At the same time, they also uncover some key areas for improvement to make the exchanges truly patient centered. Together with advocacy groups and aligned partners, states can use their performance across the metrics as starting points to begin to move exchange markets in favor of helping patients access better and more affordable care. Throughout the course of advocacy efforts, one must be mindful of the following points: Understand the State Audience Advocates can leverage their insight into the state s dynamic to target the right audience with the applicable message at the appropriate time. Some of the metrics identified in these reports represent approaches to insurance markets on which both sides of the political spectrum can agree (i.e. transparency). These types of less contentious, bipartisan policies are good starting points for some states looking to secure new protections for patients. Other states with a more active legislative or regulatory history on exchanges might be good targets for more complex patient-centered measures, such as standardized benefit designs, supplemental premium subsidies, or cost-sharing caps. Consider the Federal Government Members and partners also should consider the role the federal government plays to establish standards for many of these priority areas. Current federal standards are quite limited in their patient centeredness, offering significant opportunity to make adjustments that would lead to enhanced patient protections for many, or even all, states. With so many states using HealthCare.gov and following other federal standards, national requirements may offer substantial influence over markets across multiple states in the near term. Moving Forward / The National Health Council is dedicated to ensuring that the ACA achieves its objectives of high quality and affordable care for all people, including those with chronic diseases and disabilities. Understanding the landscape of patient-centeredness across all states can begin conversations that lead to positive changes for patients in these markets. The NHC will continue to work with members and partners as they engage with states and the federal government to ensure the exchange markets offer the most equitable, affordable, and highest quality coverage and care possible for patients. 8 ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS

9 Increase State Oversight and Regulation of Exchange Markets Currently, most states rely upon limited federal guidance for the methods they should use to ensure that exchange markets are not discriminatory. Few states have taken steps to further define their plan reviews and oversight activities. Most SBEs are not actively negotiating with plans to participate in the exchange. And, though most states have an effective rate review process, additional standards in this area can further influence premium rates among exchange plans. Finally, most SBEs have not set contracting standards for participation in the exchange, such as requiring that the issuers offer plans across all metal levels. These types of oversight actions can help to ensure that patients can access appropriate and affordable choices in the exchanges. Support Implementation of Robust Quality Rating Systems in All Exchanges The SBEs of Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, and Vermont have not yet released information about their quality rating systems. SBEs have the option to implement their own standards by 2017 or to follow the federal approach. For FFEs, public reporting of quality ratings and enrollee satisfaction will occur for the 2017 open enrollment period. NHC partners have the opportunity to work with states and the federal government to encourage rating systems that measure the experience of patients in plans and also appropriately reward plans for focusing on patient-centered care. Ensure Medicaid Changes and Expansions Offer Protections Afforded under the Traditional Program A state s approach to Medicaid expansion should ensure that patients have increased access to coverage and care, while preserving the patient protections guaranteed under the program. In 21 states, Medicaid has not been expanded to individuals and families with incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level, leaving many patients without any access to affordable health coverage. Another six states used waivers to allow the state to enroll eligible individuals and families into exchange plans rather than traditional Medicaid. Though these waivers do expand access to coverage, advocates and states should work together to ensure that Medicaid enrollees in these states have the full protections afforded under traditional Medicaid. Figure 1. Share of Respondents Who Reported Having All the Information They Needed When Choosing a Health Plan Had Needed Information 76% 24% 63% 37% Did Not Have Needed Information 58% 42% Bronze Silver Gold Advance Patient Tools that Improve Transparency Tools that increase transparency into the coverage and costs of exchange plans or offer decision support mechanisms can improve the plan selection process for people shopping for coverage in exchange plans. The cost to develop effective decision support tools may be prohibitive to many SBEs, and some states may to need to rely on federal tools, when and if they are developed. A more attainable option for many states might be requirements that improve the transparency of plan information. The NHC s recent survey indicated that most patients felt they did not have all the information they needed to choose a health plan. Further, 36% of exchange enrollees had a hard time finding a list of providers and 38% had difficulty accessing plan formularies. 2 Even without large-scale, decision support tools, states can make small improvements to transparency standards that go a long way to helping people enroll in plans that meet their health and budget needs. 2 Navigating the ACA among Enrollees with Chronic Illnesses, Celinda Lake, March ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS 9

10 State-by-State Patient-Centeredness Data 10 ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS

11 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia NONDISCRIMINATION Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Beneficial for Patients Neutral for Patients State Action to Limit Discrimination Negative for Patients High-Performing Average-Performing Low-Performing Number of Platinum Plans Available Provider Network Requirements Silver Plan Premium Stability TRANSPARENCY Overall Nondiscrimination Performance Exchange Website Decision Support Tools and Information Plan Material Transparency Requirements Overall Transparency Performance Purchasing Type STATE OVERSIGHT State Exchange Oversight Requirements Effective Rate Review Number of Carriers in the 2015 Market Overall State Oversight Performance Standardized Benefit Designs UNIFORMITY Quality Rating System Standardized Display of Information Overall Uniformity Performance CONTINUITY OF CARE Continuity of Care Requirements Medicaid Expansion Overall Continuity of Care Performance ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS 11

12 Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska NONDISCRIMINATION Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Beneficial for Patients Neutral for Patients State Action to Limit Discrimination Negative for Patients High-Performing Average-Performing Low-Performing Number of Platinum Plans Available Provider Network Requirements Silver Plan Premium Stability TRANSPARENCY Overall Nondiscrimination Performance Exchange Website Decision Support Tools and Information Plan Material Transparency Requirements Overall Transparency Performance Purchasing Type STATE OVERSIGHT State Exchange Oversight Requirements Effective Rate Review Number of Carriers in the 2015 Market Overall State Oversight Performance Standardized Benefit Designs UNIFORMITY Quality Rating System Standardized Display of Information Overall Uniformity Performance CONTINUITY OF CARE Continuity of Care Requirements Medicaid Expansion Overall Continuity of Care Performance 12 ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS

13 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah NONDISCRIMINATION Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Beneficial for Patients Neutral for Patients State Action to Limit Discrimination Negative for Patients High-Performing Average-Performing Low-Performing Number of Platinum Plans Available Provider Network Requirements Silver Plan Premium Stability TRANSPARENCY Overall Nondiscrimination Performance Exchange Website Decision Support Tools and Information Plan Material Transparency Requirements Overall Transparency Performance Purchasing Type STATE OVERSIGHT State Exchange Oversight Requirements Effective Rate Review Number of Carriers in the 2015 Market Overall State Oversight Performance Standardized Benefit Designs UNIFORMITY Quality Rating System Standardized Display of Information Overall Uniformity Performance CONTINUITY OF CARE Continuity of Care Requirements Medicaid Expansion Overall Continuity of Care Performance ENHANCING THE PATIENT-CENTEREDNESS OF STATE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS 13

14 State-by-State Progress Reports State Actions Protecting Patients in the Exchange 14 STATE PROGRESS REPORT

15 Alabama Progress Report STATE ACTIONS PROTECTING PATIENTS IN THE EXCHANGE OVERVIEW States vary in terms of the patient-centeredness of their health insurance markets. While federal rules set minimum requirements for consumer protections, some states have acted to make their markets more patient-focused. This scorecard evaluates states based on five key areas that assess patient-friendliness of their insurance markets to promote policies that best protect patients. FIVE PATIENT-FOCUSED PRINCIPLES NON-DISCRIMINATION To ensure cost sharing and other plan designs do not discriminate or impede access to care. No state action to limit discrimination. Four unique platinum offerings in the 2015 exchange. No state action on provider network requirements. The premium for the 2 nd lowest cost silver plan is 3% higher in 2015 than it was in For non-discrimination metrics, relative to other states, Alabama is an TRANSPARENCY To promote better consumer access to information about covered services and costs in exchange plans. HealthCare.gov links to external provider networks and formularies and also allows consumers to filter search results. However, the website lacks a formulary search tool, a provider search tool, and calculators to help estimate tax credit or out-of-pocket expense amounts. No state action regarding contracting requirements for plan information transparency. For transparency metrics, relative to other states, Alabama is a ALABAMA HIGHLIGHTS Alabama s exchange is regulated by the federal government and operates through HealthCare.gov. In the 2014 plan year, 97,900 Alabamians selected an exchange plan through HealthCare.gov. About 22% of Alabama residents who are eligible for exchange coverage enrolled in an exchange plan in Alabama has not expanded Medicaid. PROGRESS LEGEND This report measures states using two methods of evaluation: First, the report measures a state s performance on a series of metrics related to the five principles. Beneficial for Patients Neutral for Patients Negative for Patients Second, the report compares a state s aggregate performance on all metrics within each principle to other states performance on these same metrics. High-Performing Average-Performing Low-Performing STATE PROGRESS REPORT 15

16 STATE OVERSIGHT To ensure all health insurance exchange plans meet applicable requirements. Passive purchasing the state does not actively negotiate with plans to participate in the exchange. No state action regarding contracting requirements for exchange participation. Alabama does not have an effective rate review program. 3 Three carriers in the 2015 exchange market. For state-oversight metrics, relative to other states, Alabama is a UNIFORMITY To create standards to make it easier for patients to understand and compare exchange plans. No state action to standardize benefit designs. The quality rating system planned by the federal government for use on HealthCare.gov will show ratings for the 2017 plan year. No state action on standardized display of plan information. For uniformity metrics, relative to other states, Alabama is an CONTINUITY OF CARE To broaden sources of coverage and protect patients transitioning between plans. No state action on continuity-of-care requirements. 4 Alabama has not expanded Medicaid, which would provide coverage for an estimated 272,000 people in the state. 5 For continuity-of-care metrics, relative to other states, Alabama is a A MORE PATIENT-FOCUSED ALABAMA MARKETPLACE Alabama has not exercised its full authority to regulate the exchange to promote patient protections. Alabama s reliance on the federal government to run the exchange reduces the state s influence over its own health insurance market. Alabama would have more control over exchange plans if the state opted to create a state-based exchange or, as an intermediary step, a partnership or exchange plan management model. Alabama has yet to establish standards that would increase transparency or uniformity, protect patients from discrimination, or develop continuity-of-care requirements to help patients maintain access to care. Under a different operational model, Alabama also could become an active purchaser, which could help the state better manage increasing premiums. Another critical step towards a patient-friendly health insurance market would be for Alabama to expand Medicaid. Expansion of Medicaid would provide health insurance for more than 272,000 Alabamians. METHODOLOGY Data by Avalere Health as of January 1, Avalere maintains a proprietary database of state policy developments for all 50 states and DC. Avalere also used key resources from publicly available websites, cited where applicable. Avalere conducted a focused review of state exchange insurance markets; this assessment is not intended to be a comprehensive review of state insurance markets. Avalere only included finalized actions established in the state, and did not include proposed measures or actions. For definitions of key terms, see the National Health Council s Putting Patients First glossary. 1 Kaiser Family Foundation, Estimated Number of Individuals Eligible for Financial Assistance through the Marketplaces, November, 2014, accessed via: estimated-number-of-individuals-eligible-for-premium-tax-credits-through-the-marketplaces/ 2 Kaiser Family Foundation, Analysis of 2015 Premium Changes in the Affordable Care Act s Health Insurance Marketplaces, January 06, 2015, accessed via: issue-brief/analysis-of-2015-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/ 3 The Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, State Effective Rate Review Programs, April 16, 2014, accessed via: FAQs/rate_review_fact_sheet.html 4 Families USA, Standards for Health Insurance Provider Networks: Examples from the States, November 2014, accessed via: ACT_Network%20Adequacy%20Brief_final_web.pdf 5 Kaiser Family Foundation, A Closer Look at the Impact of State Decisions Not to Expand Medicaid Coverage for Uninsured Adults, April 24, 2014, accessed via: fact-sheet/a-closer-look-at-the-impact-of-state-decisions-not-to-expand-medicaid-on-coverage-for-uninsured-adults/ 16 STATE PROGRESS REPORT

17 Alaska Progress Report STATE ACTIONS PROTECTING PATIENTS IN THE EXCHANGE OVERVIEW States vary in terms of the patient-centeredness of their health insurance markets. While federal rules set minimum requirements for consumer protections, some states have acted to make their markets more patient-focused. This scorecard evaluates states based on five key areas that assess patient-friendliness of their insurance markets to promote policies that best protect patients. FIVE PATIENT-FOCUSED PRINCIPLES NON-DISCRIMINATION To ensure cost sharing and other plan designs do not discriminate or impede access to care. Alaska enacted legislation requiring issuers to notify members at least 90 days before implementing cost sharing, deductibles, and copayments for certain categories of drugs (e.g., specialty medications) that exceed those for non-preferred brand drugs. Alaska has no platinum offerings in the 2015 exchange. No state action on provider network requirements. The premium for the 2 nd lowest cost silver plan is 28% higher in 2015 than it was in For non-discrimination metrics, relative to other states, Alaska is a TRANSPARENCY To promote better consumer access to information about covered services and costs in exchange plans. HealthCare.gov links to external provider networks and formularies and also allows consumers to filter search results. However, the website lacks a formulary search tool, a provider search tool, and calculators to help estimate tax credit or out-of-pocket expense amounts. No state action regarding contracting requirements for plan information transparency. For transparency metrics, relative to other states, Alaska is a ALASKA HIGHLIGHTS Alaska s exchange is regulated by the federal government and operates through HealthCare.gov. In the 2014 plan year, 12,900 Alaskans selected an exchange plan through HealthCare.gov. About 15% of Alaska residents who are eligible for exchange coverage enrolled in an exchange plan in Alaska has not expanded Medicaid. PROGRESS LEGEND This report measures states using two methods of evaluation: First, the report measures a state s performance on a series of metrics related to the five principles. Beneficial for Patients Neutral for Patients Negative for Patients Second, the report compares a state s aggregate performance on all metrics within each principle to other states performance on these same metrics. High-Performing Average-Performing Low-Performing STATE PROGRESS REPORT 17

18 STATE OVERSIGHT To ensure all health insurance exchange plans meet applicable requirements. Passive purchasing the state does not actively negotiate with plans to participate in the exchange. No state action regarding contracting requirements for exchange participation. Its effective rate review program allows the state to manage premium increases. 3 Two carriers in the 2015 exchange market. For state-oversight metrics, relative to other states, Alaska is an UNIFORMITY To create standards to make it easier for patients to understand and compare exchange plans. No state action to standardize benefit designs. The quality rating system planned by the federal government for use on HealthCare.gov will show ratings for the 2017 plan year. No state action on standardized display of plan information. For uniformity metrics, relative to other states, Alaska is an CONTINUITY OF CARE To broaden sources of coverage and protect patients transitioning between plans. No state action on continuity-of-care requirements. 4 Alaska has not expanded Medicaid, which would provide coverage for an estimated 30,000 people in the state. 5 For continutity-of-care metrics, relative to other states, Alaska is a A MORE PATIENT-FOCUSED ALASKA MARKETPLACE Alaska has not exercised its full authority to regulate the exchange to promote patient protections. Alaska s reliance on the federal government to run the exchange reduces the state s influence over its own health insurance market. Alaska would have more control over exchange plans if the state opted to create a statebased exchange or a partnership exchange. Alaska has yet to establish exchange standards that would increase transparency or uniformity, protect patients from discrimination, or develop continuity-of-care requirements. In addition, Alaska s exchange does not foster competition as there are only two carriers offering coverage. As a result, there are no platinum plans offered in the state, limiting options for the people who would benefit most those with chronic conditions and disabilities. Under a different operational model, Alaska also could become an active purchaser, which could help the state better manage increasing premiums. Another critical step towards a patient-friendly health insurance market would be for Alaska to expand Medicaid. Expansion of Medicaid would provide health insurance for more than 30,000 Alaskans. METHODOLOGY Data by Avalere Health as of January 1, Avalere maintains a proprietary database of state policy developments for all 50 states and DC. Avalere also used key resources from publicly available websites, cited where applicable. Avalere conducted a focused review of state exchange insurance markets; this assessment is not intended to be a comprehensive review of state insurance markets. Avalere only included finalized actions established in the state, and did not include proposed measures or actions. For definitions of key terms, see the National Health Council s Putting Patients First glossary Kaiser Family Foundation, Estimated Number of Individuals Eligible for Financial Assistance through the Marketplaces, November, 2014, accessed via: Kaiser Family Foundation, Analysis of 2015 Premium Changes in the Affordable Care Act s Health Insurance Marketplaces, January 06, 2015, accessed via: issue-brief/analysis-of-2015-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/ The Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, State Effective Rate Review Programs, April 16, 2014, accessed via: Families USA, Standards for Health Insurance Provider Networks: Examples from the States, November 2014, accessed via: documents/act_network%20adequacy%20brief_final_web.pdf Kaiser Family Foundation, A Closer Look at the Impact of State Decisions Not to Expand Medicaid Coverage for Uninsured Adults, April 24, 2014, accessed via: fact-sheet/a-closer-look-at-the-impact-of-state-decisions-not-to-expand-medicaid-on-coverage-for-uninsured-adults/ 18 STATE PROGRESS REPORT

19 Arizona Progress Report STATE ACTIONS PROTECTING PATIENTS IN THE EXCHANGE OVERVIEW States vary in terms of the patient-centeredness of their health insurance markets. While federal rules set minimum requirements for consumer protections, some states have acted to make their markets more patient-focused. This scorecard evaluates states based on five key areas that assess patient-friendliness of their insurance markets to promote policies that best protect patients. FIVE PATIENT-FOCUSED PRINCIPLES NON-DISCRIMINATION To ensure cost sharing and other plan designs do not discriminate or impede access to care. No state action to limit discrimination. Seventeen unique platinum offerings in the 2015 exchange. No state action on provider network requirements. The premium for the 2 nd lowest cost silver plan is 10% lower in 2015 than it was in For non-discrimination metrics, relative to other states, Arizona is an TRANSPARENCY To promote better consumer access to information about covered services and costs in exchange plans. HealthCare.gov links to external provider networks and formularies and also allows consumers to filter search results. However, the website lacks a formulary search tool, a provider search tool, and calculators to help estimate tax credit or out-of-pocket expense amounts. No state action regarding contracting requirements for plan information transparency. For transparency metrics, relative to other states, Arizona is a ARIZONA HIGHLIGHTS Arizona s exchange is regulated by the federal government and operates through HealthCare.gov. In the 2014 plan year, 120,100 Arizonans selected an exchange plan through HealthCare.gov. About 19% of Arizona residents who are eligible for exchange coverage enrolled in an exchange plan in Arizona expanded Medicaid, effective January 1, PROGRESS LEGEND This report measures states using two methods of evaluation: First, the report measures a state s performance on a series of metrics related to the five principles. Beneficial for Patients Neutral for Patients Negative for Patients Second, the report compares a state s aggregate performance on all metrics within each principle to other states performance on these same metrics. High-Performing Average-Performing Low-Performing STATE PROGRESS REPORT 19

20 STATE OVERSIGHT To ensure all health insurance exchange plans meet applicable requirements. Passive purchasing the state does not actively negotiate with plans to participate in the exchange. No state action regarding contracting requirements for exchange participation. Its effective rate review program allows the state to manage premium increases. 3 Eleven carriers in the 2015 exchange market. For state-oversight metrics, relative to other states, Arizona is an UNIFORMITY To create standards to make it easier for patients to understand and compare exchange plans. No state action to standardize benefit designs. The quality rating system planned by the federal government for use on HealthCare.gov will show ratings for the 2017 plan year. No state action on standardized display of plan information. For uniformity metrics, relative to other states, Arizona is an A MORE PATIENT-FOCUSED ARIZONA MARKETPLACE Arizona has not exercised its full authority to regulate the exchange to promote patient protections. Arizona s reliance on the federal government to run the exchange reduces the state s influence over its own health insurance market. Arizona would have more control over exchange plans if the state opted to create a state-based exchange or, as an intermediary step, a partnership or exchange plan management model. Arizona has yet to establish standards that would increase transparency or uniformity, protect patients from discrimination, or develop continuity-of-care requirements to help patients maintain access to care. Under a different operational model, Arizona also could become an active purchaser. CONTINUITY OF CARE To broaden sources of coverage and protect patients transitioning between plans. No state action on continuity-of-care requirements. 4 Arizona expanded Medicaid, which now covers an estimated 299,000 people in the state. For continutity-of-care metrics, relative to other states, Arizona is an METHODOLOGY Data by Avalere Health as of January 1, Avalere maintains a proprietary database of state policy developments for all 50 states and DC. Avalere also used key resources from publicly available websites, cited where applicable. Avalere conducted a focused review of state exchange insurance markets; this assessment is not intended to be a comprehensive review of state insurance markets. Avalere only included finalized actions established in the state, and did not include proposed measures or actions. For definitions of key terms, see the National Health Council s Putting Patients First glossary Kaiser Family Foundation, Estimated Number of Individuals Eligible for Financial Assistance through the Marketplaces, November, 2014, accessed via: Kaiser Family Foundation, Analysis of 2015 Premium Changes in the Affordable Care Act s Health Insurance Marketplaces, January 06, 2015, accessed via: issue-brief/analysis-of-2015-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/ The Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, State Effective Rate Review Programs, April 16, 2014, accessed via: Families USA, Standards for Health Insurance Provider Networks: Examples from the States, November 2014, accessed via: documents/act_network%20adequacy%20brief_final_web.pdf 20 STATE PROGRESS REPORT

21 Arkansas Progress Report STATE ACTIONS PROTECTING PATIENTS IN THE EXCHANGE OVERVIEW States vary in terms of the patient-centeredness of their health insurance markets. While federal rules set minimum requirements for consumer protections, some states have acted to make their markets more patient-focused. This scorecard evaluates states based on five key areas that assess patient-friendliness of their insurance markets to promote policies that best protect patients. FIVE PATIENT-FOCUSED PRINCIPLES NON-DISCRIMINATION To ensure cost sharing and other plan designs do not discriminate or impede access to care. No state action to limit discrimination. No unique platinum offerings in the 2015 exchange. Arkansas enacted legislation requiring exchange plans to meet specified minimum network adequacy standards for primary care doctors, essential community providers, and specialists. The premium for the 2 nd lowest cost silver plan is 2% lower in 2015 than it was in For non-discrimination metrics, relative to other states, Arkansas is an TRANSPARENCY To promote better consumer access to information about covered services and costs in exchange plans. HealthCare.gov links to external provider networks and formularies and also allows consumers to filter search results. However, the website lacks a formulary search tool, a provider search tool, and calculators to help estimate tax credit or out-of-pocket expense amounts. No state action regarding contracting requirements for plan information transparency. For transparency metrics, relative to other states, Arkansas is a ARKANSAS HIGHLIGHTS Arkansas established a state-federal partnership exchange. The state is responsible for managing plan participation and customer assistance in the exchange. Arkansas residents use the federal exchange, HealthCare. gov, to compare and purchase coverage. In the 2014 plan year, 43,400 Arkansans selected an exchange plan through HealthCare.gov. About 17% of Arkansas residents who are eligible for exchange coverage enrolled in an exchange plan in Arkansas expanded Medicaid, effective in PROGRESS LEGEND This report measures states using two methods of evaluation: First, the report measures a state s performance on a series of metrics related to the five principles. Beneficial for Patients Neutral for Patients Negative for Patients Second, the report compares a state s aggregate performance on all metrics within each principle to other states performance on these same metrics. High-Performing Average-Performing Low-Performing STATE PROGRESS REPORT 21

22 STATE OVERSIGHT To ensure all health insurance exchange plans meet applicable requirements. Passive purchasing the state does not actively negotiate with plans to participate in the exchange. No state action regarding contracting requirements for exchange participation. Its effective rate review program allows the state to manage premium increases. 3 Four carriers in the 2015 exchange. For state-oversight metrics, relative to other states, Arkansas is an UNIFORMITY To create standards to make it easier for patients to understand and compare exchange plans. No state action to standardize benefit designs. The quality rating system planned by the federal government for use on HealthCare.gov will show ratings for the 2017 plan year. No state action on standardized display of plan information. For uniformity metrics, relative to other states, Arkansas is an CONTINUITY OF CARE To broaden sources of coverage and protect patients transitioning between plans. No state action on continuity-of-care requirements. 4 Arkansas has expanded Medicaid under a premium assistance model, which now covers an estimated 75,000 people in the state. For continuity-of-care metrics, relative to other states, Arkansas is an A MORE PATIENT-FOCUSED ARKANSAS MARKETPLACE Arkansas partial reliance on the federal government to run the exchange reduces the state s influence over its own health insurance market. Arkansas would have more control over exchange plans if the state opted to create a state-based exchange; currently, the state intends to run its own SHOP exchange in 2016 and its individual exchange in Arkansas has yet to establish standards that would increase transparency or uniformity, protect patients from discrimination, or develop continuity-of-care requirements to help patients maintain access to care. Under a different operational model, Arkansas also could become an active purchaser to have more authority over plan participation. Further, the state has no platinum plans, which limits options for the people who would benefit most those with chronic conditions and disabilities. Contracting requirements could encourage, or potentially require, carriers to offer a platinum plan. As Arkansas implements the premium assistance model, the state should ensure the model preserves patient protections inherent in Medicaid. METHODOLOGY Data by Avalere Health as of January 1, Avalere maintains a proprietary database of state policy developments for all 50 states and DC. Avalere also used key resources from publicly available websites, cited where applicable. Avalere conducted a focused review of state exchange insurance markets; this assessment is not intended to be a comprehensive review of state insurance markets. Avalere only included finalized actions established in the state, and did not include proposed measures or actions. For definitions of key terms, see the National Health Council s Putting Patients First glossary. 1 Kaiser Family Foundation, Estimated Number of Individuals Eligible for Financial Assistance through the Marketplaces, November, 2014, accessed via: estimated-number-of-individuals-eligible-for-premium-tax-credits-through-the-marketplaces/ 2 Kaiser Family Foundation, Analysis of 2015 Premium Changes in the Affordable Care Act s Health Insurance Marketplaces, January 06, 2015, accessed via: issue-brief/analysis-of-2015-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/ 3 The Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, State Effective Rate Review Programs, April 16, 2014, accessed via: FAQs/rate_review_fact_sheet.html 4 Families USA, Standards for Health Insurance Provider Networks: Examples from the States, November 2014, accessed via: ACT_Network%20Adequacy%20Brief_final_web.pdf 5 The Governor signed legislation delaying the state s plans to establish a state-based exchange until the Supreme Court rules on the legality of subsidies in federally-facilitated exchanges. 22 STATE PROGRESS REPORT