170 likes | 301 Views
Impact of the ACA on College Health Programs CCHA March 17, 2014. Jim Mitchell, MBA, FACHA Director, Student Health Service Montana State University. ACA: The Big Picture. Policy goals: Drastically reduce the number of uninsured and improve quality of insurance coverage
E N D
Impact of the ACA on College Health ProgramsCCHA March 17, 2014 Jim Mitchell, MBA, FACHA Director, Student Health Service Montana State University
ACA: The Big Picture • Policy goals: Drastically reduce the number of uninsured and improve quality of insurance coverage • The new landscape of health insurance in 2014 • Mandate for most individuals to purchase health insurance if not covered elsewhere • Mandates for many employers to offer health insurance have been delayed until 2015 (employers with 100+ employees) and 2016 (employers with 50-99 employees) • Insurance marketplaces allow individuals and small businesses to purchase coverage (small business marketplace delayed in many states) • Subsidies for low income people with Medicaid expanded in 26 states(incl DC); 19 states not expanding; 6 states are still debating the issue • Barriers to coverage (pre-existing condition exclusions, lifetime limits, medical underwriting) are removed
Provisions of ACA Implemented Earlier • Extend coverage of young adults on employer plans to age 26 • Preventive care covered with no patient cost sharing • 80% medical loss ratios for individual plans • Ramping up of requirements for student insurance plans; must meet all ACA requirements in 2014
ACA Addresses Quality Issues in Student Plans • Report by NY State Attorney General (2010) • Many plans provide dangerously insufficient coverage • Many plans return a low percentage of premium in form of benefits • Brokers, agents, consultants are often paid exceedingly high commissions • Contributions paid by brokers, etc. to colleges and/or their employees leads to a conflict of interest • There are often non-standard exclusions (e.g. alcohol related injuries; attempted suicide)
Higher Ed Environmental Pressures • Rising Cost/Increasing Student Debt • Cost Centers Will Be Critically Reviewed • Activities Will Need to Justify Themselves on Basis of Importance to Educational Mission • Non-essential Services Will Be Eliminated • Outsource Where Possible • Retention and Graduation Rates (particularly in public sector) • Debate about Mission of Higher Education and Learning Outcomes • Disruptive Innovation (MOOCs, on-line education, etc.) • Continuing Concerns over Campus Safety
Situation Analysis Pre-ACA (2009) Today (2014) Medicaid eligibility (where it exists) and subsidies reduce uninsured student population 2014: More than 30% of students covered by high deductible health plans Employers can eliminate coverage for spouses/dependents and have no mandate to subsidize coverage for them. Rate unbundling is a growing trend: Employee + Spouse/Partner + Each Child individually Student plans must meet ACA requirements • Funding stagnation for many college health programs – increasing fee-for-service charges • 2009: Less than 10% of students covered by high deductible health plans • Trend for adoption of health insurance requirements • Dramatic trend for employers to shift cost to employees • Trend toward compliance ACHA Ins. Stds. (20% met them), but many substandard plans remain
ACA Impact on SHIBPs and CHPsStudent Health Insurance/Benefit Program (SHIBP)College Health Program (CHP) • Individual Mandate • 2014: $95/adult; $47.50/child (up to $285/family) or 1% of family income whichever is greater • 2016: $695/adult; $347.50/child (up to $2085/family) or 2.5% of family income whichever is greater • Exemptions: https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/ • Ineligible for Medicaid because state did not expand eligibility • Financial Hardship -- or cost greater than 8% of family income • Ministry sharing plan • Nominal impact on need for SHIBPs following age 26 mandate. • Facilitated trend for employers to adopt high deductible health plans and reduce/eliminate subsidies for spouses/dependents. • 100% preventive care mandate increases challenges to traditional health fee funding for CHPs.
ACA Impact on SHIBPs and CHPs • Exemption for Student Administrative Health Fees (includes campus health service support and supplemental “bridge” plans) • Minimum Essential Coverage – Ends debate for cost v. quality • Fully insured plans regulated as individual coverage. • Exemption from Guaranteed Issue/ Guaranteed Renewability • No exemption from 80% minimum medical loss ratio (precludes risk dividend accounting, retrospective premium, or other risk sharing) • Age rating probably not permissible • Benefits must be provided + or – 2% of metal actuarial values (bronze, silver, gold , platinum) • No requirement for community rating (e.g., separate rates for undergraduate and graduate students are allowed) • Self-Funded Student Health Benefit Plans • HHS Certification required for 2015-16 plan year renewals • Can fully capture surplus funds. Minimum medical loss ratio and rebate requirement does not apply • Should assume required compliance with state mandates, appeals process, and program communications • Probably will be able to age rate • States may also regulate • Other federal statutes continue to apply: Title IX, Section 504, Age Discrimination Act, HIPAA, USIA Regulations for J-1 Visa recipients
ACA Impact – Why Student Plans Have a Cost Advantage • No age-based surcharge (same treatment as an employer plan with a young work force) • Ability to rate based on student group experience – including credit for health service and counseling center care • Gatekeeper for preventive care benefits • Self-Funding Permissible • Age rating • Benefit design flexibility • Direct contracting with hospitals/physicians/counselors
The Rationale for Student Health Insurance Reasons Not to Provide Reasons to Provide Community health care provider access Campus safety – access to psych meds and community mental health resources Student recruitment/retention asset Opportunity for community health care provider partnerships/direct contracting Value for SHIBP v. inconvenience of waiver process Employer cost shifting No exchange subsidies for employer-plan eligible Out-of-state students International students • High Financial Risk in shifting healthcare environment locally and nationally (continuing change at national level in ACA, drift from core education mission) • ACA individual mandate is sufficient – no additional institutional or campus safety need or responsibility • ACA individual mandate addresses the impact on uncompensated care within local communities • Highly transitory, non-residential campus • Urban area, college population is not highly visible.
The Future of College Health Programs A broad spectrum of strategic options with multiple permutations. . .
Triple Option • Comprehensive Program (60% of students) • Self-funded Benefit Plan • SHS and Counseling Capitation • Supplemental Care Plan (Students with high deductible plans)(20% of students) • SHS and Counseling Capitation • Limited Rx, long-term counseling, diagnostic lab/imaging • Excludes preventive care covered by insurance • Students with Gold/Platinum Level Coverage (20% of students) • Students pay office visit/counseling co-pays specified by insurance/Medicaid • 100% coverage for preventive care Health promotion and public health functions funded through pre-paid fees or institutional allocation
Opportunities • Move Back to Capitation • Expand to Provide Services to Faculty/Staff+Dependents • Community Partnerships • Experiment with New Organizational Structures/Technology • Elimination of Current Silos
“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” --Winston Churchill