In 2019, the Washington legislature enacted a bill requiring insurers on the state’s health insurance exchange to offer plans with standardized benefit designs, beginning in 2021. Colorado and Maryland are considering similar requirements. As these and other states consider the option of standardized health plans, they can benefit from the experiences of California, the District of Columbia (D.C.), Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, all of which require insurers to offer standardized benefit designs. This Expert Perspective outlines benefits and risks of plan standardization, and raises critical questions that states will need to consider, and offers a decision roadmap for states implementing a standardized benefit design requirement.
Understanding the Graham-Cassidy Proposal: Implications for States
In a final effort to pass a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act before reconciliation instructions expire on September 30th, Senators Graham and Cassidy are advancing a proposal that would retain many key provisions of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) – including per capita caps for Medicaid non-expansion populations – and replace federal funding for tax credits, cost sharing reductions, Medicaid expansion, and the Basic Health Program with a capped allotment that would be distributed to states in the form of a block grant. Continuing our webinar series on the impacts of repeal and replace proposals for states, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s State Health and Values Strategies (SHVS) program, together with technical assistance experts from Manatt Health, hosted a webinar on Friday September 22nd that provided an overview of the Graham-Cassidy proposal and discussed implications for states, including the impact of federal funding for Medicaid and Marketplace subsidies.