SACRAMENTO — At a mid-November conference in Sacramento on implementation of the federal health care overhaul in 2014, California Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley outlined the political aspects of the task ahead.
Though President Barack Obama had been re-elected in part on the promise of expanding access to health care, Dooley said, voters will hold her boss to a higher standard if he seeks re-election in November 2014. They will judge Gov. Jerry Brown in part on how well the state delivers on that promise.
There is much to be worked out, such as a Medi-Cal expansion expected to add up to 1 million new enrollees by including all those with incomes up to 138 percent of federal poverty guidelines. Brown is expected to call a special session of the Legislature this month to deal with implementation issues.
But perhaps nothing will make or break the success of the overhaul in California, and the public's perception of it, than the performance of the state-run health benefit exchange, Covered California. By Oct. 1, it must have an online insurance marketplace up and running, with the expectation of signing up about 1 million enrollees before the end of 2014.
The agency's 2013 timeline calls for posting a model contract for qualified health plans by Jan. 18, requiring plans to file rates with regulators by May 15, signing contracts and announcing the list of participating plans by June 30 and opening pre-enrollment Oct. 1.
Throughout the year, agency officials plan to train "navigators" — county social workers, staff at community-based organizations and insurance agents and brokers — to counsel and guide Californians on how to use the system.
Although California was the first state to create its health benefit exchange and last week became among the first seven states to receive conditional federal approval of its program, the timetable is tight if the exchange is to meet Executive Director Peter Lee's goal of becoming a place at which buying an insurance policy becomes "as easy as buying a book on Amazon."
The Jan. 1 deadline that seemed so distant when the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010 is now less than a year away.
"Now that we've passed the Supreme Court and the election, our biggest obstacle is the clock," said Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Health Access.
"The exchange has done an admirable job of wrestling with the many challenges of establishing a new marketplace," said Patrick Johnston, president and CEO of the California Association of Health Plans. "It's a big, complicated state, and there's much to figure out."
Initial response has been promising.
After an inquiry from the exchange in October, 33 health plans submitted preliminary notices that they plan to sell policies through the exchange. At least six bidders responded in each of the seven geographic coverage areas, and there were 12 bidders in the Southern Coastal Area region, which includes Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Orange counties.
"That gives us a sense that there is a lot of interest, and why not?" Wright said. "This is a chance to offer their product to a couple million people, many of whom will be getting significant financial help to buy their product. Why wouldn't they jump at that?"
Under the health law, those who get group insurance through large employers will still do so. In addition, Medicaid, the federal insurance program for poor people that is called Medi-Cal in California, will grow to cover an estimated 20 million additional people nationwide, according to a study last month by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute. For everyone else, the health benefit exchange will come into play.
Insurance companies will offer "gold" and "platinum" plans with different co-payments and annual out-of-pocket expense limits. All will have to offer a minimum level of what are deemed essential services, including prescription drugs and mental health care, and provide preventive care such as immunizations with no patient cost-sharing.
Consumers will be able to go to the Covered California web portal to compare and shop for plans. Those with incomes of up to 400 percent of federal poverty guidelines, or $44,680 for individuals and $92,200 for a family of four, will be eligible for federal subsidies to offset some of the premiums.
People will still be able to buy individual plans directly from an insurance company, but only those who make purchases through the exchange will be eligible for subsidies.
"For consumers, this will be a game-changing moment," Wright said. "They will pay for coverage based on what they can afford. Some people are now spending 10, 20, 30 percent of their incomes on coverage. With the exchange, they will pay from 2 percent to 8 percent."
Johnston said plans will compete largely based on the network of doctors and hospitals that participate and to a lesser degree on price.
"A policy or plan that offers the doctors a consumer wants to continue with or see and the hospitals a person wants to have access to — that's what will matter most," he said.
As for price, Johnston said that while the subsidies will make individual health plans more affordable for most consumers, the costs for the insurance product will rise.
"All the policies will have comprehensive benefits with many preventive services at no cost to the patient. But still, doctors and labs will have to be paid," he said. "The cost-drivers remain and are added to."
In addition to the individual-market exchange, the agency will run a second exchange, the Small Business Health Options Program, that will allow businesses with fewer than 50, mostly low-wage employees buy plans for their workers and receive a 50 percent tax credit.
David Chase, California director for a group called Small Business Majority, said business owners, many of whom may have been lukewarm or hostile to the federal health overhaul, are just now beginning to focus on the details.
"They now know that the health care law is here to stay, and small business is hungry for information," he said. "At this point, there are still a lot of questions in the small-business community."
But he thinks that once small-business owners become familiar with the tax credit, interest in the exchange will spike.




Mount Vernon, Washington Bridge Collapse
Ventura County's Most Wanted May 23rd












Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 33
DanaEslinger writes:
I thought our premiums were going to go down under Obumble-care, but I just got a notice from my insurer that my policy is going up about %20. And I have a plain vanilla plan. Oh well, another broken promise, somehow Bush's fault.
MalibuDriver writes:
My insurance costs have been rising 20%-30% a year for the last decade. I don't blame Obama or Bush, but I hope these increases slow down. I doubt that would happen if we didn't change the system.
viking2265 writes:
People earning "x" amount of dollars will be eligible for government subsidies.
I thought that
A. It was the "Affordable Healthcare Act"/
If people need subsidies, it ain't very affordable.
B. "Government subsidies". For those of you on the left, that means taxpayer dollars.
cassandra2 writes:
It's still a system of byzantine complexity. Too bad single payor was not politically viable.
We seem to be creeping toward sanity at so slow a rate that it will be years before we reach the level of other industrial nations.
UK has had national health since about 1946. As I remember Harry Truman proposed that for us back then and Americans were scared away by red baiters and fears of doctors that they would lose clout. Well, they did lose it anyway, but to bean counters and corporate profit takers.
worldfxr writes:
You really are grossly misinformed and uneducated on anything you write about in the star! Again, you must be a full time recipient of some form of welfare subsidy because you comment full time, which means you probably are not working, and you are incorrect all of the time, and quite frankly make up most of your answers.
Lo_Information_CalDem_voter writes:
This lo-info voter knows that in 1946 Great Britian was no longer great. It was broke and literally could barely feed itself. Without aid from American things could have been very dire. Interesting to note that in their darkest hours after the war they rejected Winston Churchill and went with labour and socialism. The 'great' in Great Britain was never quite the same after that.
I suppose I could be labeled presumptuous to link America's current situation with Britain's post WWII predicament. Was Britain plagued with lo-information voters in 1946? Probably not, they were just war weary and broke.
So what's America's excuse? Simple, its filled with lo-information voters waiting to be rolled over.
waynes-world writes:
The insurance companies are rubbing their hands together at the thought of grabbing more tax dollar " subsidies". The trial lawyers should also be happy at the prospect of more malpractice litigation.
Lurker-X writes:
It's the subsidies that will make the policies more affordable.
Really? You can't understand that?
Is your horned hat too tight?
Lurker-X writes:
I agree that it's still too complex, but it's unfair to describe it as "byzantine."
It's an approximation of the Swiss model for universal health care. That model preserves private doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies.
On the plus side, if you want to call it that, it philosophically maintains a private system to provide universal coverage.
On the minus side, the Swiss have the most expensive universal system of the industrialized world, save for - you guessed it - the US.
I agree - single payer was and still is the best system - Medicare for all US Citizens and legal residents.
In the best of all possible worlds, Medicare would cover, say, 75% of all medical costs and private insurers, regulated as non-profits, would provide the rest of coverage and would offer other supplemental insurance policies for dental, vision, etc., and be allowed to "bundle" their health-oriented plans with other insurance products, e.g. property, life, etc., policies.
I think we'll eventually get to a single payer system - the key word is *eventually.*
As Winston Churchill was supposed to have said, "Americans will always do the right thing… after they've exhausted all the alternatives..."
Lurker-X writes:
Yes and no.
My understanding is that it's not that simple. The UK has agreements with other major European nations to reciprocally treat and bill patients from those countries.
What you're talking about is basically foreign indigents. Say an illegal immigrant from a poor African country is treated in the UK - I can't imagine the NHS would try or expect to get reimbursement from say, Somalia.
cassandra2 writes:
LOL
Lurker-X writes:
So you claim that for illegal immigrants who receive care in the UK, the country bills the person's home country? And they get paid?
A place like Chad or Somalia pays for its illegal immigrants care under the NHS?
If you say so. I'd be surprised.
What countries are you talking about? Other EU countries? I'd expect they'd pay - even Eastern European countries like Poland, say, but seriously - impoverished countries?
I'm not ruling it out as an idea - if the US could find a way to bill other countries for the care of illegal immigrants and be reimbursed, I'm all for it.
The point though is that illegal immigrant care is only a small part of our health care crisis. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make every illegal immigrant disappear back to their countries of origin, we'd still have a huge health care crisis here in the US.
Poplicola writes:
What does it cost? Who cares!!!! Full speed ahead...bankruptcy, here we come!
RIGHTisRIGHT writes:
"Thousands of Spanish medical workers and residents are marching through downtown Madrid to protest against government budget cuts and plans to partly privatize their cherished national health service"
http://bostonherald.com/business/busi...
Mina writes:
Most provisions of ObamaCare won't kick in for another year or two. What you're seeing is the last gasp of the Bush era when premiums rose 20% to 60% a year, year after year, and yet doctors and hospitals are going bankrupt.
How about you check back after we get the programs set up.
RIGHTisRIGHT writes:
The article says "Medi-Cal in California, will grow to cover an estimated 20 million additional people" One can predict the bureaucracy to manage the expansion will be increased to accomadate the growth.
FactsMatter writes:
Average increase in employer plans is under 4%. Individual policies much higher. Prior to Obamacare increase for employer plans was about 8% over the last few years.
TheCrusader writes:
Actually under Bush they were going up by 40%. The top 20 Execs at Blue Cross all make over a million a year, they need to raise your rates to keep their mansions. Good thing we don't have socialized medicine like in Great Britain, of course 95% of them say they love their socialized medicine and would not give it up.
TheCrusader writes:
Why don't you complain to President Romney?
Lurker-X writes:
Go ahead and find some study that shows what percentage of health care costs are due to undocumenteds' care, then we'll talk.
It's small potatoes. Our healthcare costs for 2009 were $2.5 trillion.
How much is that due to care of illegal immigrants?
As for your suggestion of "astringent" treatment of insurance companies, I'm all for that - dump them all in isopropyl alcohol, for all I care. (snark)
cassandra2 writes:
A Jim Leher documentary on PBS some years ago described the German system which seemed a possible easy transition from what we have. In it there were private insurers but they were forbidden to make a profit, only to cover expenses including the administration costs and salaries of those involved in it.
We no longer hear of "compensation packages" in the billions as was reported in WSJ several years back for the head of United Health. This might still be happening for all I know, but they don't seem so keen to proudly announce it.
DanaEslinger writes:
Yours is about the sanest comment here. Stinky would agree. I can't believe someone actually invoked Bush! Low information and lower IQ.
Lets_Be_Truthful writes:
So how much is Hillary's workers comp. claim going to cost us?
Lurker-X writes:
Not "presumptuous" so much as wrong and inaccurate.
How is the US today similar to Britain after the war? Great swathes of London and other major British cities were destroyed after the war? Is that the case here?
Your comparison makes sense to you because you make a simple-minded comparison: big debt then, big debt now. Socialism then, socialism now. Yeah, that's it - I'm a brilliant logician and historian. ((snark))
Britain's move toward Labour and socialism predated the war. While Churchill was PM he oversaw a coalition government with Atlee as Deputy PM.
Say what you want but Atlee's (and Bevin's) legacy of the NHS is something Brits are proud of and for all its faults, works and works much cheaper than our system.
TheCrusader writes:
Not as much as Republican Senator Crapo's drunk driving conviction.
TatooU writes:
Subsidies as in raising my insurance premiums and taxes. Who do you think will pay for it?
Lets_Be_Truthful writes:
Well, if it is anything like Ted Kennedy's he will pay nothing at all. Maybe someone will get him a helmet too!
VintageRacer writes:
Actually, the article says an additional 20 million people nationwide, not 20 million in California
IfYouSaySo (Inactive) writes:
Meanwhile...everyone seems to be ignoring this little problem, including this news site.(shocker)
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/br...
Just when folks thought Prop 30 was going to fix the financial problems...watch your purses and wallets.
RIGHTisRIGHT writes:
Right,thanks for the correction.
RIGHTisRIGHT writes:
Wrong again as usual.The National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans found average per-employee cost of health coverage rise of 6.5 percent in 2012.
Many business like Wendy's are reducing employee hours to 28 hours per week due to the rising costs of Obama care.
Thank Obama for creating more poverty
venturadreamin writes:
Interesting that commentors are mentioning "Bush era" rates. What does Bush have to do with insurance? Remember the Federal government has not been in the insurance business until Obamacare. There have been a few regulations that Congress have passed over the years, but no control like Obama has taken. Get ready for the payroll fee increase that the working Americans will get hit with to pay for the "reduced" premiums.
ceeyh805 writes:
Blame the bean counters and profit takers if you like, but being a Doctor is a business, Doctors like having houses, cars, boats and highly paid employees. When you raise the cost of doing business on Doctors, hospitals and medical device makers as Obummer has done, like any other business the cost to the consumer goes up. Blame the politicians and lawyers for high mal-practice and operating costs.
Single payer would only result in less people willing to spend the hundreds of thousands it costs to become Doctor. Free markets work weather you like it or not, whenever arrogant people like Obummer who think they know better get involved bad things happen.
How's that Hope and Change working for you now...?
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.