- ACA Implementation & State Health Reform
- Coverage and Access
- Federal/State Issues
- Medicaid and CHIP
- Population and Public Health
- Providers and Services
- Acute Care
- Assisted Living
- Behavioral Health
- Child Development Services
- Chronic Care Management
- Community Health Centers
- Developmental Screening
- Early Childhood Services
- EPSDT
- Family Planning
- Federally Qualified Health Centers
- Home & Community Based Services
- Long Term Services & Supports
- Medical Homes & Health Homes
- Mental Health
- Nursing Homes
- Oral Health
- Preventive Care
- Primary Care
- Safety Net Providers
- Quality, Cost, and Health System Performance
- ACOs
- Adverse Event Reporting
- Care Transitions
- Comparative Effectiveness
- Cost Sharing
- Delivery System Reform
- Fraud and Abuse
- Health Care Workforce
- Health Information Technology
- Managed Care
- Medical Homes & Health Homes
- Medical Malpractice
- Patient Safety
- Payment Reform
- Performance Measurement
- Provider Payment Policy
- Quality Oversight
- Specific Populations
- Adolescents
- Childless Adults
- Children
- Children with Special Health Care Needs
- Dual Eligibles
- Elders
- Families
- Low Income People
- Parents
- People with Chronic Conditions
- People with Developmental Disabilities
- Transitional Youth
- Vulnerable Populations
- Young Adults
- Youth
- Youth in Foster Care System
- Youth in Juvenile Justice System
Submitted by Admin on Thu, 06/17/2010 - 14:14
Benefit design has a powerful effect on access to and utilization of services—particularly for the low and moderate income people most affected by health reform. Traditional design features such as copayments, deductibles, and benefit limits are blunt instruments. Newer concepts of evidence-based benefit design are more sophisticated. For example, some plans have eliminated cost-sharing for medications designed to treat chronic conditions on the basis that use of these drugs should be encouraged, not discouraged through copayments. At the same time, new benefit designs under development increase cost-sharing for procedures that do not have an evidence base to support their effectiveness.
While the federal law establishes parameters for insurance coverage, and those standards may be further explicated through regulations, a significant number of benefit design issues remain with the states. For example, the new Medicaid coverage for people with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level is for so-called “benchmark” coverage, which can be designed more akin to a commercial plan than to the traditional Medicaid benefit structure. The broad authority states have to select plans to participate in the insurance exchange could be used to affect benefit design. Many states operate premium assistance programs for workers who have access to employer-sponsored insurance, and the standards for those programs could include certain criteria regarding benefit design. States retain control over their benefit mandates in the individual and small group markets—although they must reimburse the federal government for some subsidy expenses associated with those benefits. And, of course, states continue to purchase coverage for their own workers and retirees.
While benefit design initially affects how the enrollee interacts with the health care system, when considered across purchasers, effective benefit design can push the entire health care system toward an emphasis on prevention and coordination and away from services and procedures that have limited value.
