Delays and Confusion on High-Risk Pools
USA Today reports this morning on the many states likely to miss the July 1 start-up date for the state high-risk pool program. (July 1 is itself a delayed implementation date; the law states the program should have begun by last Monday, June 21.) Some states like Michigan have said they may not be able to get their programs up and running until as late as October, due to lengthy bidding processes, the need for state legislative action, or both. The Administration claims a detailed list of state risk pools will be available at www.healthcare.gov; however, this website is not yet operational either.
Likewise, the New York Times also highlights the CBO report from last week stating that the health care law’s $5 billion in funding “will not be sufficient to cover the costs of all applicants.” The article reports that states “would freeze [risk pool] enrollment if necessary to keep within their budgets,” but also notes that “it is not clear who would be legally responsible for claims that remain unpaid after a state’s allotment runs out” – one of the reasons why 20 states chose not to participate in the program.
Politico reports that states who did choose to run their own high-risk pools have obtained language in contracts signed with HHS that indemnifies them from any lawsuits against the risk pool, and clarifies that “they do not have a financial commitment to run the pool if HHS funds run out.” That is a welcome outcome for the states, if it avoids imposing yet more unfunded mandates on them, but it also doesn’t answer the fundamental question of what happens should the funds prove insufficient.
To be clear: Many Republicans support high-risk pools as a means to offer quality, affordable coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions. The prime questions surrounding this program involve implementation and priorities: What happens if (or, more likely, when) the $5 billion in federal funds runs out? And why did Democrats spend so much money on other, more dubious programs – $15 billion for a jungle gym “slush fund,” and billions more on backroom deals – rather than funding this critically important program properly in the first place?