Connect with us

#NNPA BlackPress

PRESS ROOM: New Analysis Finds Leading State-Based Marketplaces Have Performed Well

NNPA NEWSWIRE — The report examines the impact that federal and state actions have had on state-based marketplaces and the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM). Cumulative premium increases in California, Massachusetts and Washington are less than half of the increases seen in FFM states, but 2019 premium increases spiked in California and Washington compared to Massachusetts, which continued its state-based penalty.

Published

on

WASHINGTON D.C. — A new report highlights the benefits of state-based exchanges, particularly in the areas of controlling premium costs and attracting new enrollment. The report, which was produced by Covered California, the Massachusetts Health Connector and the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, found that premiums in these states were less than half of what consumers saw in the 39 states that relied on the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM) between 2014 and 2019.

“The lesson is striking: Consumers are the big winners when marketplaces use all the tools of the Affordable Care Act,” said Covered California Executive Director Peter V. Lee. “The policies underway in these three states are easily transferable, and if applied to the federal marketplace, taxpayers would save billions of dollars in subsidies, and middle-class Americans would benefit from much lower premiums.”

The joint report examined how state and federal actions affected premiums and new enrollment.

State-Based Marketplaces Controlled Premium Growth

The report examined the cost of coverage by comparing the average benchmark premium in three states and the FFM between 2014 and 2019. The weighted average increase in California, Massachusetts and Washington was 39 percent, compared to the 85 percent increase in FFM states.

In addition, the report also found if the FFM states had experienced the same lower premium growth seen in the three states, the federal government could have saved roughly $35 billion in lower subsidy payments between 2014 and 2018.

While the report did not quantify the increased costs paid by unsubsidized consumers in FFM states, they would have saved substantially and been less likely to have been priced out of coverage.

State-Based Marketplaces Performed Better at Enrolling New Consumers

The report also examined the impact on new enrollment of recent federal decisions on marketing and outreach and the elimination of the individual mandate penalty.

Figure 1: Average Benchmark Premium Growth by Percentage Compared to 2014

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation. Estimate of cost savings use benchmark premium data. FFM includes SBM-FP states.

During the final days of open enrollment for the 2017 plan year, the federal administration began a series of cuts to marketing and outreach on behalf of FFM states. These cuts have been deepened and maintained, resulting in a significant reduction in new enrollment in states served by the federal marketplace. The decrease in new enrollment likely means a less-healthy consumer pool, which would lead to the larger premium increases seen above.

From 2016 to 2018, the 39 FFM states saw the number of new enrollees drop from 4 million to 2.5 million, a decrease of 40 percent. By contrast, new enrollment in California, Massachusetts and Washington — states that control their own marketing and outreach — remained relatively stable (see Figure 2: New Enrollment Growth by Marketplace, Comparing 2016 to 2018).

“State-based marketplaces know that health insurance is a product that needs to be actively sold to consumers, and getting the word out is a proven way to promote enrollment,” said Pam MacEwan, chief executive officer of the Washington Health Benefit Exchange. “Enrolling more people means a healthier risk pool, which lowers premiums and saves money for everyone in the individual market.”

Figure 2:  New Enrollment Growth by Marketplace, Comparing 2016 to 2018

Clear Indication of the Critical Role of the Individual Mandate Penalty in Promoting Enrollment

The open-enrollment period that just concluded for the 2019 coverage year marked the first time the marketplaces would operate without a federal individual mandate penalty, which was zeroed out through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and signed into law by the president. During the most recent open-enrollment period, new enrollment in FFM states dropped an additional 16 percent — on top of the already large drop of 40 percent in the prior two years. California and Washington also experienced steep declines in the number of new enrollees signing up for coverage. However, Massachusetts — which kept a state-level mandate penalty — saw new enrollment increase by 31 percent (see Figure 3: New Enrollment Growth by Marketplace, Comparing 2018 to 2019).

Figure 3:  New Enrollment Growth by Marketplace, Comparing 2018 to 2019

“The individual mandate in Massachusetts has proven to be an effective part of our effort to provide access to affordable coverage to everyone,” said Louis Gutierrez, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Connector. “Our experience shows that a mandate that provides incentive to participate, while also delivering important protections and benefits to consumers, plays a vital role not only in people getting covered, but also staying covered.”

Other marketplaces have also instituted a penalty, such as New Jersey and the District of Columbia. While critics may point to lower new enrollment in New Jersey as proof that a penalty is not effective, Lee says that is not the case. “The penalty works, and to solely highlight New Jersey — which had a penalty in place, but also had its marketing and outreach efforts undercut — is not a reasonable comparison.”

“While Washington kept premium increases in the early years of the Affordable Care Act to low single digits, the past three years have seen big increases due to federal policy changes that continue to bring uncertainty to the market, including the zeroing of the individual mandate penalty,” said MacEwan. “In particular, 2019 saw an almost 14 percent premium increase. These premium increases are having a large negative impact on the many Washington consumers who do not benefit from a subsidy.”

The release of the report comes on the same day that leaders of the California and Massachusetts marketplaces appeared before the Health Subcommittee of the U.S.

House Committee on Energy and Commerce. View the hearing on “Strengthening Our Health Care System: Legislation to Lower Consumer Costs and Expand Access.”

Read the testimonies of representatives from California and Massachusetts at the committee hearing.

About Covered California

Covered California is the state’s health insurance marketplace, where Californians can find affordable, high-quality insurance from top insurance companies. Covered California is the only place where individuals who qualify can get financial assistance on a sliding scale to reduce premium costs. Consumers can then compare health insurance plans and choose the plan that works best for their health needs and budget. Depending on their income, some consumers may qualify for the low-cost or no-cost Medi-Cal program.

Covered California is an independent part of the state government whose job is to make the health insurance marketplace work for California’s consumers. It is overseen by a five-member board appointed by the governor and the Legislature. For more information about Covered California, please visit www.CoveredCA.com.

Covered California can be contacted at media@covered.ca.gov or (916) 206-7777.

About the Massachusetts Health Connector
The Massachusetts Health Connector is the Commonwealth’s health insurance exchange, and currently provides health or dental insurance to more than 300,000 people. Individuals and small businesses can search for and purchase high-quality, commercial coverage, while reaping the health and financial benefits of being covered. Individuals and small businesses can find health insurance options at www.MAhealthconnector.com.

For information on the Massachusetts Health Connector, contact Jason Lefferts, director of Communications and Media Relations, at (617) 933-3141.

About the Washington Health Benefit Exchange
The Washington Health Benefit Exchange, or Washington Healthplanfinder, is an online marketplace for individuals and families in Washington to compare and enroll in health insurance coverage and gain access to tax credits, reduced cost-sharing and public programs such as Medicaid. The next open-enrollment period in Washington begins on Nov. 1.

The Washington Health Benefit Exchange can be reached at ben.spradling@wahbexchange.org.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

#NNPA BlackPress

Conversation with Al McFarlane and Coach Leah

May 29, 2023 – Welcome back to another episode of The Conversation with Al McFarlane! We bring you inspiring discussions …
The post Conversation with Al McFarlane and Coach Leah first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

on


https://youtube.com/watch?v=6ydjQ14cOJM&autoplay=0&cc_lang_pref=en&cc_load_policy=0&color=0&controls=1&fs=1&h1=en&loop=0&rel=0

May 29, 2023 – Welcome back to another episode of The Conversation with Al McFarlane! We bring you inspiring discussions

The post Conversation with Al McFarlane and Coach Leah first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Continue Reading

#NNPA BlackPress

No Labels Endorses Bipartisan Deal to Resolve US Debt Ceiling Debate

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “We have always emphasized that there should be common sense bipartisan solutions to our nation’s problems that are supported overwhelmingly by the majority of the American people,” No Labels National Co-Chairs Joe Lieberman, Larry Hogan, and Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., said in a joint statement issued on Sunday, May 28.
The post No Labels Endorses Bipartisan Deal to Resolve US Debt Ceiling Debate first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

on

By

By Stacy M. Brown
NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

No Labels, a growing national movement of what the organization calls “common sense Americans pushing leaders together to solve the country’s biggest problems,” announced its support of the bipartisan deal that President Joe Biden, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have agreed upon in principle to avoid the United States defaulting on its national debt before the June 5 deadline.

“We have always emphasized that there should be common sense bipartisan solutions to our nation’s problems that are supported overwhelmingly by the majority of the American people,” No Labels National Co-Chairs Joe Lieberman, Larry Hogan, and Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., said in a joint statement issued on Sunday, May 28.

Chavis also serves as president and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the trade association of the more than 230 African American owned newspapers and media companies in the United States.

After months of uncertainty and verbal sparring, an “agreement in principle” has been reached to spare the United States from its first-ever debt default.

But now comes the hard part: convincing both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to agree to pass the measure.

After President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that they’d reached an accord to raise the nation’s debt ceiling and avoid a catastrophic default, Congress has just a few days to approve the deal.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said a deal needs ratification by June 5, or the United States would breach its $31.4 trillion debt ceiling.

If approved by Congress, the deal would raise the debt ceiling for two years, punting it to the next administration.

The GOP originally proposed a one-year deal but conceded to Democrats’ demand for two.

In the agreement, spending – except for the military – would remain at 2023 levels for next year, with funds being earmarked for other federal programs.

Biden also agreed to a $10 billion cut to the $80 billion he had earmarked for the IRS to crack down on individuals cheating on their taxes.

Instead, the funds will go to other programs that Republicans sought to cut.

Additionally, with billions remaining from pandemic relief funds unspent, both parties agreed to claw back those funds to the federal government.

“Avoiding America’s default in paying our national debt is vital to the future of our nation. We thank President Biden and Speaker McCarthy for their leadership to achieve the debt ceiling deal,” the No Labels leaders continued.

“We encourage Republican, Democratic and Independent members of both chambers of the US Congress to pass this agreement expeditiously because it is so important for every American.”

The post No Labels Endorses Bipartisan Deal to Resolve US Debt Ceiling Debate first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Continue Reading

#NNPA BlackPress

Three Years After #DefundThePolice, Schools Are Bringing Cops Back to Campus

SAN DIEGO VOICE & VIEWPOINT — As of January 2023, there were about 60 SROs remaining in D.C. schools, down from its peak of more than 100, according to the Washington Post. However, the progress made toward reducing law enforcement presence in D.C. schools appears to be in jeopardy. In what seems like a backtrack from the progressive momentum generated during “America’s racial reckoning,” four D.C. council members now support a proposal to retain officers in schools, citing an uptick in violence and crime in school vicinities.
The post Three Years After #DefundThePolice, Schools Are Bringing Cops Back to Campus first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

on

By Maya Pottiger, Word in Black 

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, calls to defund the police rang across the nation during the summer of 2020. While few cities took swift action, many school districts — integral community hubs where young minds are nurtured, and where kids spend the bulk of their time — began to reevaluate the presence of armed personnel patrolling the hallways.

In September 2019, eight months before Floyd’s murder, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported nearly 25,000 school resource officers were assigned to primarily K-12 schools.

Those numbers slowly started to change in districts around the country as a response to calls to defund the police.

In Washington, D.C., for example, the D.C. Council unanimously voted in 2021 to reduce the number of SROs in both public and charter schools beginning July 2022, with the plan to end the Metropolitan Police Department’s School Safety Division in 2025.

In September 2019, eight months before Floyd’s murder, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported nearly 25,000 school resource officers were assigned to primarily K-12 schools.

As of January 2023, there were about 60 SROs remaining in D.C. schools, down from its peak of more than 100, according to the Washington Post. However, the progress made toward reducing law enforcement presence in D.C. schools appears to be in jeopardy. In what seems like a backtrack from the progressive momentum generated during “America’s racial reckoning,” four D.C. council members now support a proposal to retain officers in schools, citing an uptick in violence and crime in school vicinities.

On the other side of the country, the Denver Public School District Board of Education unanimously voted to bring SROs back to schools through June 2023. Similar to D.C., the decision followed closely on the heels of a shooting at Denver’s East High School. And 18 SROs were brought back to 17 schools in the district.

Schools around the country are running into roadblocks trying to remove SROs.

The Roadblocks

The roadblocks don’t look the same in every situation.

In D.C., for example, ACLU DC policy associate Ahoefa Ananouko cites Mayor Muriel Bowser as the biggest barrier. Bowser has been vocal about keeping SROs in schools, going as far as to say that removing SROs is “the nuttiest thing.”

And, like in D.C. and Denver, politicians, policymakers, and some educators nationwide cite violence in the area as a reason for keeping SROs, but there is little evidence to support that SROs actually do make schools safer. In fact, in a 2020 report, the Justice Policy Institute said, “rates of youth violence were plummeting independent of law enforcement interventions, and the impact of SROs on school shootings has been dubious at best.”

Plus, it’s been proven that SROs exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline, especially for Black students.

The Center for Public Integrity analyzed U.S. Department of Education data from all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico in 2021. The investigation found that school policing disproportionately affects students with disabilities and Black students. Nationwide, these two groups were referred to law enforcement at “nearly twice their share of the overall student population.”

What we often have seen is that the teachers or classified staff who feel that it’s not within their ability to handle certain situations automatically defer to the SROs.

ADONAI MACK, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AT CHILDREN NOW

But it doesn’t stop many adults on the school campus from differing discipline to SROs, says Adonai Mack, the senior director of education at Children Now. This happens when there is either a fear around addressing disciplinary problems or concerns, or feeling they aren’t able to handle it.

“What we often have seen is that the teachers or classified staff who feel that it’s not within their ability to handle certain situations automatically defer to the SROs,” Mack says.

This is where the call for additional non-police safety officials comes in, like nurses, counselors, or psychologists, who “certainly do more help than harm,” Mack says.

But, like teachers and other educators, there’s a shortage of these professionals. But Ananouko says this shouldn’t be a barrier if policymakers decided it was more important to have mental health professionals or restorative justice interventionalists — people who are trained to handle trauma, behavior, and underlying issues.

“I believe they could and should shift those resources to incentivize those professionals being hired instead of investing more in police,” Ananouko says, “which have been shown to be harmful to students in a school environment, generally.”

A Detriment to Mental Wellness

Though it’s too early to have concrete data on students’ mental health without SROs, there are, anecdotally, reasons to believe it’s a positive change.

Aside from students leading police-free school groups, there are other historic factors that lend insight. For one, whenever there are fears around deportation, not only Black students, but Latino and AAPI students experience negative mental health impacts, Mack says.

The feelings, like with the Defund the Police movement, are split across racial lines. Black, Latino, and AAPI students don’t always feel safe with police around.

“With kids of color, what you often have is this alienation,” Mack says. “There are decreased feelings of safety. Now, I would say that’s different for white kids and white families. They often will feel that having police on campus makes the campus safer.”

Black and Brown students are more likely to attend a school patrolled by an SRO.

And, Black and Brown students are more likely to attend a school patrolled by an SRO. A 2023 Urban Institute study found that schools where the student population is at least 80% Black and Brown, students are more likely to have an SRO compared to schools with a high population of white students, regardless of income levels. And, 34%-37% of schools with high populations of Black and Brown students have an SRO, compared to 5%-11% of predominantly white schools.

But it’s clear that there’s “a detriment to kids of color” with police on campus, Mack says.

“From that perspective, with any decrease, what we see is that it automatically improves the mental wellness of students from those communities,” Mack says.

‘A Critical Point’

While the roadblocks might be tougher or the headlines have fizzled out, Ananouko says the police-free schools movement “isn’t slowing down at all.”

And now, D.C. is at a critical point. It’s budget oversight season, meaning it’s the time when funding for SROs could be restored. But, every year since the initial 2021 vote, students, school administrators, teachers, and advocates have continued to push for the phase-out, Ananouko says.

“Our messaging has not changed,” Ananouko says. “We’ve stayed consistent in saying that police don’t keep students safe. And none of that has changed in these past three years.”

The bottom line is that all kids deserve to feel safe and nurtured, Ananouko says.

“They should be able to feel like they can go to school with that fear,” she says, whether this fear comes from other students or armed officers in the building who can use their gun “at any point at the discretion of the law is on their side.”

“A lot of the issues that students are dealing with are not going to be addressed by somebody with a gun.”

This article originally appeared in San Diego Voice and Viewpoint.

The post Three Years After #DefundThePolice, Schools Are Bringing Cops Back to Campus first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending