A project of the George Washington University's Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

The Basic Health Program

Posted on June 29, 2011 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Library
Implementation Briefs
Key Developments

By Sara Rosenbaum

Background

An important issue in implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is how to address the needs of uninsured low-income individuals and families whose incomes exceed Medicaid eligibility levels but are less than twice the federal poverty level (about $37,000 for a family of 3 in 2011). Under the ACA, the basic approach to assisting such individuals and families is the state health insurance Exchange, which enables qualified individuals to secure coverage and provides access to premium assistance and cost-sharing subsidies aimed at making coverage and care affordable.

Research shows that a significant proportion of the low-income population can be expected to experience income fluctuation over a year and move back and forth between Medicaid and a state Exchange. A recent study examining income dynamics among the low-income population estimated that within 6 months of initial enrollment, 35 percent of the low-income population will experience enough change in income to move from Medicaid to an Exchange or vice versa.[1] Over a 12-month time period, this figure rises to 50 percent (approximately 28 million adults). Data from the same study show that 30 percent of adults starting out with family incomes high enough to qualify for Exchange premium credits will see their incomes dip below 133 percent within 6 months, a figure that rises to 43 percent over a 12-month time period.

Movement across the Medicaid/Exchange divide for low-income subsidized families raises several challenges:

  • Health plans that participate in Medicaid may not participate in the Exchange (or vice versa), thereby causing families to have to disenroll and reenroll in plans frequently. Because health plans deliver their services through provider networks, this frequent switching can also create serious disruption in health care. The ACA does not require companies that sell Medicaid managed care plans to sell products in the Exchange as a condition of Medicaid participation; nor does the ACA require insurers that seek to sell qualified health plans in Exchanges to also participate in Medicaid.
  • The premium tax credit available through an Exchange is calculated based on a retrospective annual review of income. By contrast, Medicaid eligibility is based on a real-time eligibility determination based on current income.[2] Although the same income valuation methodology (known as MAGI) governs the two models, the two approaches to evaluating income differ markedly, making eligibility determinations across the two subsidy systems complex.
  • Paradoxically, individuals and families receiving Exchange tax credits who experience income decline to the point at which they become eligible for Medicaid may face premium tax credit recoupment liability under the ACA, if not immediately disenrolled and re-enrolled. This is because premium credits are not available to otherwise-qualified individuals who are “eligible” for “minimum essential coverage,” which includes Medicaid.[3]

Changes Made by the Affordable Care Act

The ACA provides states with an option known as the Basic Health Program (BHP),[4] which is designed to provide an alternative coverage pathway for the low-income population (i.e., for those with family incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level). The law directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a BHP that meets certain federal requirements. Under the program, a state may contract with one or more “standard health plans” to provide “at least” essential health benefits to the population eligible for BHP coverage. In order for a state to establish such a program, the law requires the Secretary to “certify” that:

  • monthly premiums as well as patient cost-sharing amounts charged to standard health plan enrollees will not be any greater in relation to their incomes than the amount that the same individuals would pay under the Exchange premium tax credit system;[5] and
  • standard health plans cover at least the essential health benefits  required of qualified health plans sold through the state Exchange.[6]

The law further provides that a “standard health plan” is one that is open only to eligible individuals and that, if offered by a licensed health insurance issuer, maintains a medical loss ratio of at least 85%.[7] The legislation also permits states to contract with HMOs, health insurance issuers, or “networks of health care providers established to offer services” under the program.[8] The term “eligible individual” is defined as an individual who:

  • is “a resident” of the state;
  • is ineligible for Medicaid and whose household income exceeds the Medicaid eligibility level but does not exceed 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) (or in the case of a lawfully present alien, whose income does not exceed 133% FPL but is ineligible for Medicaid based on alien status);
  • who does not qualify for minimum essential coverage; and
  • who is under 65 years of age.[9]

No individual can be eligible for the BHP unless the individual would be a “qualified individual” within a state health insurance Exchange,[10] and “eligible” individuals under the BHP may not use the state’s Exchange.

The ACA requires states to use a “competitive” contracting process that utilizes a negotiated approach to premiums, cost-sharing and benefits in addition to essential health benefits.[11] The ACA also requires a state to build certain factors into the competition, including:

  • innovation in the areas of care coordination for enrollees with chronic conditions, incentives for the use of preventive services, and establishment of provider/patient relationships that “maximize” patient involvement in health care decision-making;
  • allowance for differences in health care needs among enrollees as well as differences in the availability and accessibility of local providers;
  • consideration of the degree to which contractors maintain the attributes of managed care systems given the local health care markets in which they operate; and
  • use of performance measures for issuers of standard health plans that “focus on quality of care and improved health outcomes” and that require reporting of such measures to the state and enrollees in a “useful form.”[12]

The ACA also requires that “to the maximum extent feasible,” a state must make multiple standard health plans available[13] and must coordinate its BHP with its Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as well as other state-administered health programs.

The law requires that once the HHS Secretary determines that a state meets the BHP requirements, she must “transfer to the State for each fiscal year for which 1 or more standard health plans are operating within the state” an amount equal to 95% of the premium tax credits and the cost sharing reductions “that would have been provided for the fiscal year to eligible individuals enrolled in standard health plans in the state if such eligible individuals were allowed to enroll in qualified health plans through an Exchange….”[14]

The law further requires that the Secretary make this financial determination about how much is owed to the state on a “per enrollee basis” that takes into account “all relevant factors necessary to determine the value of the premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions that would have been provided to eligible individuals” including:

  • enrollee age and income;
  • whether enrollment is for self-only or family coverage;
  • geographic differences for average health care spending across rating areas;
  • reinsurance payments that would have been made if enrollment had been into a qualified health plan in an Exchange; and
  • whether any reconciliation would have occurred if the enrollee had been so enrolled.[15]

In making her determination, the Secretary is required to consider the experiences in states that enroll the target low-income population in their health insurance Exchanges. The Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), in consultation with the Office of Tax Analysis in the Department of the Treasury, must certify the methodology and the determination.[16]

The ACA further requires that funds received by the state be deposited into a trust fund established by the state that may be used only “to reduce the premiums and cost-sharing of, or to provide additional benefits for, eligible individuals enrolled in standards health plans” and bars the counting of funds held in trust as the state contribution toward any federal program (e.g., the required state share of Medicaid expenditures).[17]

Implementation

Agency and Key Dates

No specific implementation date is provided under the law. Because the basic health program would operate in lieu of a health insurance Exchange for eligible persons, implementing regulations may be issued as part of HHS’ issuance of Exchange regulations.

Key Issues

Certification process: What information will be required of states to secure approval and certification, and what will be the timeline and process? Specifically, since the program uses the Exchange experience on costs as the benchmark, how will certification work in advance of having sufficient state experience to properly gauge that premium and cost-sharing obligations will not exceed those applicable to similarly situated individuals in an Exchange?

Offering of plans by entities that are not health insurance issuers: What federal standards will be set for networks of health care providers that seek to offer a basic health plan under a state program?

The negotiation process and documenting innovation, health and resource differences, managed care use, and performance measurement: How will states be expected to demonstrate that they have negotiated around premium pricing, the introduction of innovations, adjustments for health and resource differences, the use of managed care arrangements, and performance measurement?

Offering multiple plans and the “maximum extent feasible” test: What test will the Secretary develop for measuring whether it is feasible for the state to offer more than one basic health plan?

Funds transfer system: How will the funds transfer system work? Since the transfer methodology uses Exchange experience as a point of reference, how will the methodology account for states that seek to establish a Basic Health Program prior to amassing state experience with an Exchange system?

Public involvement: Will the Secretary require evidence of public involvement in the decision to establish and operate a Basic Health Program prior to approving such a program?

Accounting for recoupment: What assumptions will HHS and Treasury use about the extent of recoupment that participants can be expected to experience, including both recoupment against individuals with incomes above Medicaid eligibility levels as well as recoupment against individuals who become eligible for Medicaid during an enrollment year? What level of recoupment will be assumed for individuals who move between Medicaid and the Basic Health Program more than once during an enrollment year?

Recent Agency Action

None

Authorized Funding Levels

The Basic Health Program represents mandatory federal spending and therefore is not subject to the annual authorization or appropriations process.


[1] Benjamin Sommers and Sara Rosenbaum, “Issues in Health Reform: How Changes in Eligibility May Move Millions Back and Forth Between Medicaid and Insurance Exchanges,” Health Affairs 30:2 (Feb. 2011) pp. 228-236.
[2] For an excellent brief on how the new approach to evaluating income will change Medicaid’s historic approach, see The New Rules for Determining Income Under Medicaid in 2014 (Kaiser Family Foundation) http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8194.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011).
[3] PPACA §1401, adding IRC 36B(c)(2)(A) and (B).
[4] PPACA §1331. For an excellent analysis of the option see Stan Dorn, The Basic Health Program Option Under Federal Health Reform: Issues for Consumers and States (Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.) at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412322-Basic-Health-Program-Option.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011).
[5] PPACA §1331(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).
[6] PPACA §1331 (a)(2)(B).
[7] PPACA §1331(b)(3).
[8] PPACA §1331(g).
[9] PPACA §1331(e).
[10] Id.
[11] PPACA §1331(c)(1).
[12] PPACA §1331(c)(2).
[13] PPACA §1331(c)(3).
[14] PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A)(i).
[15] PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A) and (B).
[16] PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A)(iii).
[17] PPACA §1331(d).
Benjamin Sommers and Sara Rosenbaum, “Issues in Health Reform: How Changes in Eligibility May Move Millions Back and Forth Between Medicaid and Insurance Exchanges,” Health Affairs 30:2 (Feb. 2011) pp. 228-236.
For an excellent brief on how the new approach to evaluating income will change Medicaid’s historic approach, see The New Rules for Determining Income Under Medicaid in 2014 (Kaiser Family Foundation) http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8194.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011).
PPACA §1401, adding IRC 36B(c)(2)(A) and (B).
PPACA §1331. For an excellent analysis of the option see Stan Dorn, The Basic Health Program Option Under Federal Health Reform: Issues for Consumers and States (Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.) at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412322-Basic-Health-Program-Option.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011).
PPACA §1331(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).
PPACA §1331 (a)(2)(B).
PPACA §1331(b)(3).
PPACA §1331(g).
PPACA §1331(e).
Id.
PPACA §1331(c)(1).
PPACA §1331(c)(2).
PPACA §1331(c)(3).
PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A)(i).
PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A) and (B).
PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A)(iii).
PPACA §1331(d).

No Comments

Leave a Comment

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) recently released a report which first describes the Basic Health option, next reviews the issues states should consider in determining whether to adopt it, and finally assesses the issues on which states urgently need federal guidance in order to fully assess the option and whether it is appropriate for them. For more information on the Basic Health program, click here.
A paper recently released by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Georgetown University uses data from the Current Population Surveys for 1980 through 2011 to review trends in health-insurance coverage rates for low-wage workers (defined as workers in the bottom fifth of the wage distribution in each survey year). In 2010, over 38 percent of low-wage workers lacked health insurance from any source, up from 16 percent in 1979. The biggest reason for the decline in coverage is the erosion of employer-provided health insurance, either through a worker's own employer or as a dependent on another family member's employer-provided policy. Over the last three decades, the role of public insurance in providing coverage for low-wage workers has increased, though not nearly enough to offset the declines in private insurance. In 2010, about 10 percent of low-wage workers had coverage through Medicaid, double the share in 1979. While a great deal of uncertainty still surrounds the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its likely impact on employers and workers, reasonable estimates based on consensus projections suggest that the ACA will have a substantial positive effect on health-insurance coverage rates for low-wage workers. Even so, the ACA will likely leave an important share of low-wage workers, especially low-wage Latino, African American, and Asian workers, as well as many immigrant workers, without coverage. At the same time, if the ACA is blocked – in the courts or in Congress – there is every indication that coverage rates for low-wage workers will continue their long, steady decline.
According to a new Gallup survey, fewer Americans got their health insurance from an employer in 2011 (44.6%) than in 2010 (45.8%), continuing the downward trend Gallup and Healthways have documented since 2008. As employer-based health insurance has declined, the percentage of Americans who are uninsured has increased, rising to 17.1% this year, the highest seen since 2008. The 25.2% of Americans who had government health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, or military/veterans' benefits) has not changed since 2010. Two factors appear responsible for the increase in uninsured...
In a new issue brief entitled "The Income Divide in Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act Will Help Restore Fairness to the U.S. Health System," The Commonwealth Fund Health Insurance Tracking Survey of U.S. adults finds nearly three of five adults in families earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level were uninsured for a time in 2011. Two of five were uninsured for one or more years. Low- and moderate-income adults who were uninsured during the year were much less likely to have a regular source of health care than people in the same income range who were insured all year. In addition, uninsured lower-income adults were more likely than insured adults in the same income group to cite factors other than medical emergencies as reasons for going to the emergency room. These included needing a prescription drug, not having a regular doctor, or saying that other places cost too much. The report suggests that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will substantially narrow these inequities through a set of affordable coverage options.
The Urban Institute's paper, "Using the Basic Health Program to Make Coverage More Affordable to Low-Income Households: A Promising Approach for Many States," discusses how proper implementation of Basic Health Programs (BHPs) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could create more affordable coverage for low-income households. By implementing a BHP to provide Medicaid-like coverage, modified to add cost-sharing typical of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), States could substantially reduce coverage costs and expand the number of insurance enrollments. Additionally, successful BHP execution would reduce the burden placed on the health insurance Exchanges and Medicaid. For more information on the Basic Health Program, click here.
Families USA's paper, "The Basic Health Option: Will It Work for Low-Income Consumers in Your State?" reviews the concept of the Basic Health Program (BHP), discusses some potential program pitfalls, and raises key issues that can influence the direction that a BHP might take in states with varying financial and political constraints. Some key challenges highlighted in the paper of the BHP include the provision of seamless coverage and provider payment rates.
A new policy brief issued by the Community Service Society (CSS) of New York examines that state's options related to establishing a Basic Health Program (BHP) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The brief, "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Basic Health Insurance Option for New York," determines that if adopted, a BHP in New York State could provide no-cost coverage to 467,000 low-income residents.
A new study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) compares care seeking behavior and health outcomes of individuals covered by insurance with those who are uniunsured, and found better self-reported physical and mental health among those with insurance. The study, "The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year," offered Oregon Medicaid on a randomly-assigned, lottery basis to an experimental group of uninsured individuals, while the control group received no coverage. Lower out of pocket medical costs were also noted among the group receiving coverage.
On December 16, 2011, the HHS Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) released an Essential Health Benefits Bulletin, whose purpose is to “provide information and solicit comments on the regulatory approach that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to propose to define essential health benefits under section 1302 of the Affordable Care Act.” Comments on the Bulletin can be sent directly to EssentialHealthBenefits@cms.hhs.gov and will be accepted until January 31, 2011
This update to the Medicaid Implementation and health insurance Exchange Briefs reviews a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) implementing the Medicaid and CHIP eligibility, enrollment simplification, and coordination provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services on August 17, 2011, the rule is comprehensive in scope; its public comment period ends October 31, 2011. The Medicaid NPRM is part of a group of three regulations, all of which are summarized at HealthReformGPS.org. Together the rules are designed to implement both the Medicaid eligibility expansions, the process of determining eligibility for premium tax credits and cost sharing assistance in the Exchange individual market, and standards for employers purchasing coverage in Exchanges. Collectively, the rules are designed to allow individuals and families to acquire and keep coverage and move more seamlessly among publicly-supported sources of health insurance as family income and circumstances change.
On December 16, 2011, the HHS Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) released an Essential Health Benefits Bulletin, whose purpose is to “provide information and solicit comments on the regulatory approach that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to propose to define essential health benefits under section 1302 of the Affordable Care Act.” Comments on the Bulletin can be sent directly to EssentialHealthBenefits@cms.hhs.gov and will be accepted until January 31, 2011