NEW JERSEY: 1 OF 8 STATES AWARDED HEALTH INSURANCE CO-OP

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Contact: Joshua Henne, 732-407-5938 

Freelancers CO-OP of NJ Will Benefit Individuals & Small Businesses

(NEW JERSEY) – Yesterday, New Jersey was announced as one of eight states awarded a Consumer Oriented and Operated Plans (CO-OP) loan. These funds will help the Freelancers CO-OP of New Jersey start a private non-profit, consumer-governed health insurance company.  Created by the Affordable Care Act, CO-OPs provide more health care choices for both individuals and small businesses.

The Affordable Care Act has an express goal of funding one CO-OP in each of the fifty states. The funding for loans is part of $3.8 billion included in federal health care reform to create non-profit insurers. Beginning in 2014, millions of uninsured people will now be able to purchase private coverage in new state markets. CO-OPs will compete in state-run insurance exchanges, and tax-credit subsidies will help customers with the cost. These new and innovative health-insurers will be run by their members and are designed to offer coverage to both individuals and small businesses.

"This CO-OP loan announcement is just another accomplishment in a long list of ways the Affordable Care Act is providing access to high-quality, affordable healthcare and wellness benefits to all Americans," said Joshua Henne, New Jersey spokesman for Know Your Care. "The Freelancers CO-OP of New Jersey will be a terrific resource for countless families and small businesses throughout the state."

 Freelancers CO-OP of New Jersey was awarded a $107,213,300
loan to provide health insurance coverage statewide. This particular non-profit health insurer is sponsored by Freelancers Union - a union of independent workers partnering with providers with an innovative and effective Patient-Centered Medical Home model.

 The loans will help fund CO-OP start-up costs. The money will also assist these nonprofit health insurers in meeting minimum reserve requirements to pay claims. All loans must be repaid with interest and loans will only be made to private, nonprofit entities that show a high probability of becoming financially viable. The loans for start-up costs must be repaid within 5 years, while solvency loans must be repaid in 15 years.

To-date seven nonprofits offering coverage in eight states have already been awarded $638.7 million. In addition to the Freelancers CO-OP of New Jersey, the other states benefitting include Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Wisconsin. All will begin operation starting January 1^st, 2014.

 For more information on this announcement, please visit: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/02/coops02212012a.html

****

 The Affordable Care Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23^rd,^, 2010. Over the past two years, it has been a tremendous help to millions of Americans as this real reform lowers costs and guarantees more choice for consumers.  As additional provisions are implemented, ACA will continue to benefit millions more people.

  

If US is Serious About Debt, There's a Single-Payer Solution

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial
August 14th, 2011

If America truly is serious about dealing with its deficit problems, there's a fairly simple solution. But you're probably not going to like it: Enact a single-payer health care plan.

See, we told you weren't going to like it.

But the fact is that everyone who has studied the deficit problem has agreed that it's actually a health care problem — more specifically, the cost of providing Medicare benefits to an aging and longer-living population. The bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform reported last December: "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects if we continue on our current course, deficits will remain high throughout the rest of this decade and beyond, and debt will spiral ever higher, reaching 90 percent of GDP in 2020.

"Over the long run, as the baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to grow, the situation will become far worse. By 2025 revenue will be able to finance only interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Every other federal government activity — from national defense and homeland security to transportation and energy — will have to be paid for with borrowed money."

That being the case — and nobody argues that it isn't — there are two broad ways for the government to address its spiraling health care costs. One, shift more of those costs to recipients, by trimming benefits and/or extending eligibility ages and indexing eligibility to personal income. This is politically unpalatable, particularly to most Democrats, President Barack Obama being a conspicuous exception.

The second way for government to address its health costs is not to shift them, but to reduce them. This is what a single-payer health care system would do, largely by taking the for-profit players (insurance companies for the most part) out of the loop.

The advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program estimates that "private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans."

Once everyone is covered, the government would have the clout to bring discipline into the wild west of health care spending. It could insist that providers be paid for quality of service, not quantity. Health facilities and equipment could be managed by regional boards. Medical services could be "bundled" — rather than paying hospitals and doctors and laboratories separately, there would be fixed prices for treatments. And so on.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in 2009 contains many pilot programs designed to test cost-reduction strategies. Most of them won't kick in for another six to eight years, by which time health care costs will be approaching 20 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. The combined state and federal share of that will be 49 percent, up from 45 percent today.

Indeed, a study published this month in the journal Health Affairs estimates that while the Affordable Care Act will pay for itself by 2020, it won't actually "bend the cost curve," as the Obama administration had hoped. But the study, done by the Actuary Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, says the ACA will significantly slow the rise of health care costs to state and local governments.

But consider those two findings: In effect, they say that if reducing overall health care costs is the goal, then the ACA didn't go far enough. Thirty million more people will be insured and government costs will grow more slowly. But overall health care costs will continue to explode.

Sooner or later, a nation serious about controlling spending must take broad control of the health care system.

It surely won't be sooner. Compared to the political fight that would erupt over a single-payer plan, the congressional battle over the Affordable Care Act would seem as tame as resolution praising mom, the flag and apple pie.

The ACA was a compromise. Mr. Obama brought everyone to the table — doctors, insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals — and came away with a "best we can get" kind of bill. Many of those at the table turned around and lobbied against it or sought special favors once the bill came before Congress.

It passed by narrow margins, and Congress is decidedly more conservative now. Indeed, the new House majority has voted to repeal the ACA and challenges to its constitutionality continue to work their way toward the Supreme Court.

But now, like a baby discovering its toes, Congress has discovered the deficit. And the plain fact is that unless you want to commit political suicide and cut Medicare to the bone — as Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-Wis., budget plan would do — the best way to seriously address long-term deficits is to get control of health care costs through a single-payer plan.

In 2008, when health care costs amounted to "only" 16 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, Great Britain was spending 8.7 percent of its GDP on health care, and Canada was spending 10.4 percent. Both nations have single-payer plans. Quality of care scores in both nations are at least comparable, and in most cases, better.

Eventually, the United States will have a single-payer plan. But we'll waste a lot of money and time getting there.

Video:Town Hall Crowd Cheers On Man Confronting GOP Rep Over Repealing Health Care

I think that before the Republicans in Congress had voted to repeal the health care law, they should have watched this video first.

It shows a Town Hall meeting where a Republican Congressman from Ohio, Jim Renacci, is confronted by an audience member asking him if the Republicans in Congress intended to repeal the newly enacted health care law, what did they have to replace it with?

Congressman Renacci had no answer and tried to deflect the question by stating how the law was a "jobs killer". When this was disputed by the questioner Renacci stated that he knew of 3 or 4 people that had lost their job because of it.

He didn't give a very convincing argument for repeal and this just goes to show Republicans are not concerned for the average Americans well being. They really on care about the corporate well being of big business.

President Obama's Weekly Address 8/7/10: Medicare Officially Safer After Health Reform

The President discusses a new Medicare Trustees report showing Medicare to be on much stronger footing as a result of the reforms in the Affordable Care Act. In addition, seniors are also already getting help with prescription drug costs when they fall into the infamous “donut hole.”



See more about Health Care

Rush Holt on health care vote: Decision made after weighing all the arguments

Congressman Rush Holt has an excellent opinion piece in the Asbury Park Press today explaining his decision to support health care reform. He writes about those throughout the 12th congressional district who have written to or have spoken to him about their needs and concerns over this issue. And he is convinced that the reform that he supported and that was signed into law by President Obama will have a lasting positive inpact on his constituants.


"Listen to me" the placard read, held by the demonstrator. As Congress prepared to vote on the health reform legislation, I heard from passionate supporters for reform and against reform. The most passionate advocates argued that if I had listened to them, I would vote exactly the way they wanted me to. In fact, I did listen to them and lots of others.

Throughout the debate over health insurance reform, I talked with patients, seniors, doctors, nurses, small business owners and others to learn their perspectives. I heard from those unsure about the health care bill, but certain that the current system isn't working for them. I value and understand the concerns raised during this debate.

For me, the debate about health insurance reform always has been about the families who struggle to secure and afford the coverage they need. It's about patients with diabetes or cancer who can't even obtain insurance. It's about the small business owners who face rising costs paying for employees' health insurance costs. It's about seniors who can't pay for their prescription drugs. It's about the woman who explained that her father died because he did not have access to good health care. It's about the hard-working, upstanding family forced to declare bankruptcy because their insurance company cancelled their coverage when their daughter's illness became expensive.

When I voted for the health care package, I did so on behalf of the many thousands of New Jersey residents who desperately need greater control over their health care. My vote was for a constituent from Marlboro, who wrote me about his daughter-in-law who was diagnosed with breast cancer. While she has good coverage now, he believes she will have to stop working when she undergoes her cancer treatments, causing her to lose her insurance.

Because of reform, she can continue to have health coverage if she has to change jobs. She will be able to purchase coverage at group rates through a new insurance marketplace and have help with her insurance premiums to make sure they are affordable. She will not have to worry about being discriminated against because she has breast cancer. In fact, no one in the U.S. will ever be discriminated against because they have a preexisting condition, which can include diabetes, epilepsy or even pregnancy.

Read more >>> Here

President Obama's Weekly Address: 3/6/10 What Health Reform Will Deliver – This Year

In this week’s address, President Obama describes how American families will have more control over their health care this year, after health reform passes.



Here are a few more points about how health insurance reform measures will benefit Americans this year:

Hold Insurance Companies Accountable:

• Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all new plans;
• Prohibit rescissions of health insurance policies in all individual plans;
• Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
• Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs;
• Establish a process for the annual review of unreasonable increases in premiums, requiring State insurance commissioners to work with the HHS Secretary and States.

Protect Consumers:

• Provide grants to States to support health insurance consumer assistance and ombudsman programs to help consumers;
• Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
• Require all insurance plans to use uniform coverage documents so consumers can make easy comparisons when shopping for health insurance;
• Establish an internet portal to assist Americans in identifying coverage options;
• Prohibit insurers from discriminating in favor of highly compensated employees by charging them lower premiums.

Ensure Affordable Choices and Quality Care:

• Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
• Create a temporary re-insurance program for early retirees;
• Require new plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;
• Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
• Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
• Facilitate administrative simplification to lower health system costs.

NJPP Monday Minute: 10/12/09

New report shows need for national health care reform

How is national health care reform critical to New Jersey's public health and economy? That's the topic of a new NJPP report that analyzes major provisions in "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"(H.R. 3200). The House of Representatives bill mandates health coverage for everyone - much like states do with car insurance - to prevent people from applying for health coverage only when they are ill.

Health care reform is particularly vital in New Jersey, where the number of uninsured increased to 1.28 million in 2007-2008, a 31 percent increase over the past eight years. Why so many? One reason is that employers are dropping coverage for employees faster than the national average. In addition, personal health care expenditures have been skyrocketing in New Jersey for some time, increasing by an annual average of about 6 percent between 1991 and 2004, more than twice the national inflation rate.

The Right Rx for NJ: National Health Care Reform details key findings, including:

• The bill would cause the number of uninsured New Jerseyans to decrease by an estimated 1 million primarily because of $34 billion over ten years in federal health subsidies to low and middle income households.
• Many of the 1.2 million seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare would receive better prescription drug coverage and most of New Jersey's 250,000 uninsured children would have insurance.
• The bill would likely reduce the cost of insurance for small employers which could save jobs, preserve wages and increase their competitiveness by making health insurance more affordable.

High medical costs are one of the main reasons why a public insurance option is so important to New Jersey. It would likely reduce cost increases by promoting more competition and choice, which is especially important in a state that already has one of the highest costs of living in the nation.

The report offers recommendations to ensure New Jersey residents directly benefit from a health care overhaul. Among them:

• Set an income limit at 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 eligibility for a family of four) for health insurance subsidies.
• Promote choice and competition through a public health insurance option.
• Guarantee Medicaid eligibility for childless adults and increase primary care provider rates with at least 90 percent federal matching funds.
• Improve Medicare by eliminating the "doughnut hole" in prescription drugs.

The report also notes the consensus in Congress on important elements of reform regarding the private insurance marketplace - measures that include prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, terminating insurance if the policyholder becomes too sick and capping lifetime benefits.

Given the unrelenting increase in the number of people without insurance and the high cost of health coverage in New Jersey, health reform is a necessity- not an option. Without it, the state's public health and economy are threatened.

CBO Scores Confirm Deficit Neutrality of Health Insurance Reform Bill

Late Friday the Congressional Budget Office issued estimates that states for the first time that "H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window - and even produces a $6 billion surplus."

The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the “donut” hole in the Medicare drug benefit.

The estimates issued by the CBO are good news for President Obama and the Democrats in congress because they show that indeed, health insurance reform can be deficit neutral and pay for itself.

Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to say on her blog:

"The CBO report confirms that The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act delivers on a critical promise President Obama and the House have made to the American people: health insurance reform legislation will be paid for.

After an historic day yesterday when two out of three committees in the House passed the legislation, Congress has made major progress on health insurance reform that will put patients and doctors back in charge, ensure quality, affordable, and accessible health care for America’s middle class and control the spiraling costs of health care through innovative reforms.

As the legislative process moves forward, we will continue to look for ways to squeeze more savings out of the system."