Yesterday was the deadline for states to decide whether or not they’d run their own high-risk pool or rely on a federal fallback option. Kaiser Health News has gathered a collection of news stories, one of which (Wall St. Journal) says that 12 states will not run their own program. Another (CQ HealthBeat) has a partial list:
As of 12:30 p.m. Friday, these are the states that will operate a program: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Washington. States opting out are Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee and Wyoming. (Bold mine.)
Also of interest are estimates of high-risk pool costs relative to the $5 billion set aside for them. The Wall St. Journal reports that “Last week, an actuarial report from HHS found the program would burn through the $5 billion set aside for it as soon as next year, though the money is supposed to last until 2014.”
(I can’t seem to find the HHS actuarial report to which the WSJ refers. If anyone locates it or a full list of opt-in and opt-out states, please let me know.)
Later: For the actuarial report, see AB’s comment below.
by AB on May 1st, 2010 at 15:23
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_oact_memorandum_on_financial_impact_of_ppaca_as_enacted.html
3rd paragraph on page 16
by Austin Frakt on May 1st, 2010 at 20:44
@AB – Thanks! For future reference it’s the April 22, 2010 document by Richard Foster titled “Estimated Financial Effects of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’ as Amended.” The Hill is another source for the document. Why am I unable to find this on the HHS or CMS sites? (Just wondering.)
by AB on May 2nd, 2010 at 01:51
No problem. Richard Foster is a great actuary, he embodies the best qualities of the profession so I’m always happy to direct more people to his work.
When the report came out I did the same thing and went to the CMS website but couldn’t find it. They could really use a redesign.