The Halbig case, if it prevails, would have far-reaching side effects on the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate and the functioning of the individual insurance market.
Private InsuranceSee more about Private Insurance
- view as grid
- view as list
Navigating the Health Insurance Landscape: What’s next for Navigators, In-person Assisters and Brokers?
On August 5, 2014, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Alliance for Health Reform hosted a briefing to discuss navigator and other in-person assistance programs under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation.
This report is based on based on focus group discussions with parents with moderate incomes enrolled in private coverage (employer sponsored or Marketplace) who had children in public coverage (primarily CHIP) or children with private coverage. This report is based on 14 focus group discussions conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and John Snow, Inc. in six cities during February and March 2015. Sites included Birmingham, AL, Chicago, IL, Denver, CO, Philadelphia, PA, and Tampa, FL. Each of these states operate separate CHIP programs. An additional 4 focus groups were conducted in Los Angeles, CA (two in English and two in Spanish). The purpose of the groups was to gain insight into what low and middle-income families value in their children’s coverage, their experiences with CHIP and private insurance, and on parents’ perspectives on the future of CHIP. The information gathered can help inform policy questions such as would private coverage (either employer sponsored coverage or Marketplace) or Medicaid work for children who currently are enrolled in CHIP?
This issue brief summarizes what’s known about workplace wellness programs offered by employers today and the use of financial incentives to encourage workers to participate. Findings are drawn from the KFF/HRET Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey. In addition, the brief reviews proposed changes by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in federal standards governing financial incentives by workplace wellness programs and how these changes might balance the use of incentives against other discrimination and privacy protections.
Data Note: Predictors Of Positive And Negative Attitudes Towards The ACA Among Non-Group Insurance Enrollees
One of the groups perhaps most affected by changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are people who purchase their own health insurance in the non-group market. In this Data Note, we examine data from the Kaiser Family Foundation Wave 2 Survey of Non-Group Health Insurance Enrollees to explore the characteristics of non-group enrollees that are associated with positive and negative attitudes towards the ACA, including feeling personally benefited or negatively affected by the law.
Analysis of 2016 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplaces
This analysis provides an early look at premium changes for individuals in the health insurance marketplaces, created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in major cities in 10 states plus DC. Premium changes for the benchmark silver plans vary significantly across the sample cities. The benchmark rates will increase 4.4 percent on average in 2016 without accounting for tax credits, a relatively modest amount but greater than the average increase for 2015.
A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans in major metropolitan areas in 11 states where data are available, including the District of Columbia, finds that preliminary 2016 premiums for benchmark silver plans grew modestly, but increased more sharply this year than last year. The average increase for benchmark plans across the cities is 4.4 percent for 2016 compared with a 2 percent increase nationwide in 2015.
The Kaiser Family Foundation held a media-only conference call with key experts on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), state marketplaces and more to explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the King v. Burwell case and to answer questions about its implications. The petitioners in the case are challenging the legality of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying health plans in 34 states where the federal government rather than the state is operating an insurance marketplace established by the Affordable Care Act.
With the Supreme Court ruling on King v. Burwell upholding the Affordable Care Act’s federal subsidies, Drew Altman’s column in The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank explores what the decision means and what’s next for the health law.
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that when told that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to keep the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as it is, allowing subsidies to be provided to low- and moderate-income people in all states regardless of who runs their Marketplace, about 6 in 10 say they approve of the decision while about a third disapprove. The King v. Burwell ruling does not appear to have had an immediate effect on the public’s overall views of the health law. Still, most Americans do not think the ACA has cleared its last big hurdle with the June 25 Supreme Court ruling; just 18 percent think the King v. Burwell case was the last major battle over the ACA, while nearly 8 in 10 think there will be more to come.