WASHINGTON
(AP) — One of the few popular provisions of President Obama's health care
takeover — consumer-friendly summaries of what your insurance plan covers —
suddenly seems to be at risk because of White House campaign concerns.
Consumer
groups say it's not Republican opposition they're worried about, but a White
House that doesn't want to be seen, in an election year, as churning out costly
new regulations.
At
issue is the health care law's requirement that insurance plans provide simple,
standard summaries of coverage and costs to help consumers pick benefits that
are right for them — a sort of "CliffsNotes" version of the cryptic
jargon.
The
rule is due to take effect in time for open enrollment season this fall and is
undergoing final review by the White House. It would apply to all private and
employer health plans, covering an estimated 180 million Americans.
But
consumer advocates say they fear the administration may heed industry
complaints that the regulation, as proposed last summer, is too costly,
burdensome and intrusive.
"There
is concern that the consumer protections we were hoping to see may not be in
the final rule," said Dr. LaShawn McIver, policy director for the American
Diabetes Association. "Ultimately, we are looking for a consumer-friendly
product that gives people the information they need about what levels of
coverage they can expect."
Her
organization and four others — the American Cancer Society, the American Heart
Association, AARP and Consumers Union — wrote Obama this week urging him not to
water down the requirements.
"The
information available to Americans today is wholly inadequate for consumers to
choose and understand the insurance coverage options available to them,"
their letter said.
Simple-to-understand
health plan summaries are the most popular provision of the health care law,
which otherwise continues to divide the public. That's according to a poll last
November by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which found the summaries
garnered support from 84 percent of Americans, compared with 37 percent who
viewed the overall law favorably.
Administration
officials said they can't comment on the specifics of regulations under review,
but they sought to reassure the consumer groups, which were major backers of
the health care law as it was being debated in Congress.
"Giving
consumers the information they need and making the health care system more
transparent is a top priority," said Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the
Health and Human Services Department. "We're confident the final rules ...
will meet that goal."
A
proposed template released by the department last summer included such basic
details as information on premiums, deductibles and copays for doctor visits
and hospitalizations. Such information is now generally the norm in health plan
summaries that most companies voluntarily provide their employees during annual
open enrollment.
But
the federal template went further. It also included something fairly new —
so-called "coverage examples" that give a ballpark estimate of the
cost for a typical individual for three common health conditions: normal
childbirth, treating breast cancer and managing diabetes. Because all health
plans would have to follow the same rules in compiling the information, it
would allow consumers to compare insurance in ways they can't now.
Lynn
Quincy, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union, said the advocacy groups
have learned that two of the coverage examples may be omitted in the final
regulation, leaving only a comparison of maternity costs, at least at the
outset. Additionally, the requirement for employer plans to provide the benefit
summaries may be delayed or weakened.
"We
are very concerned that compared to the proposed rule that was released in
August, the final rule we are expecting shortly will be weakened," she
said. "That would be very bad for consumers."
America's
Health Insurance Plans, a trade group representing the industry, has complained
that the timeline for introducing the comparisons this year is unrealistic, and
the initial cost would be three times what the government estimated, or $382
million for the first two years alone. That would drive up costs for employers
and health plans, the industry said, at a time when many companies are
struggling in a difficult economy.
The
industry says simple summaries for consumers are not necessarily easy to
produce, raising numerous issues that range from accurately boiling down
complicated insurance options into a couple of written lines, to accommodating
the coverage changes that employers make from year. Deadline pressure also adds
to costs, requiring insurers to hire outside contractors to meet the federal
timetable, the industry says. Allowing an additional 18 months would
significantly reduce the cost.
In
his State of the Union message Tuesday night, Obama demonstrated that he's
sensitive to criticism of government overreach through regulations. "There
is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too
costly," the president said. "I've ordered every federal agency to
eliminate rules that don't make sense."
___
Online:
Proposed
template for health plan comparisons: http://tinyurl.com/6ryq8rl
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.