A project of the George Washington University's Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

The Basic Health Program

Posted on June 29, 2011 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Implementation Briefs
Key Developments
Library

By Sara Rosenbaum

Background

An important issue in implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is how to address the needs of uninsured low-income individuals and families whose incomes exceed Medicaid eligibility levels but are less than twice the federal poverty level (about $37,000 for a family of 3 in 2011). Under the ACA, the basic approach to assisting such individuals and families is the state health insurance Exchange, which enables qualified individuals to secure coverage and provides access to premium assistance and cost-sharing subsidies aimed at making coverage and care affordable.

Research shows that a significant proportion of the low-income population can be expected to experience income fluctuation over a year and move back and forth between Medicaid and a state Exchange. A recent study examining income dynamics among the low-income population estimated that within 6 months of initial enrollment, 35 percent of the low-income population will experience enough change in income to move from Medicaid to an Exchange or vice versa.[1] Over a 12-month time period, this figure rises to 50 percent (approximately 28 million adults). Data from the same study show that 30 percent of adults starting out with family incomes high enough to qualify for Exchange premium credits will see their incomes dip below 133 percent within 6 months, a figure that rises to 43 percent over a 12-month time period.

Movement across the Medicaid/Exchange divide for low-income subsidized families raises several challenges:

  • Health plans that participate in Medicaid may not participate in the Exchange (or vice versa), thereby causing families to have to disenroll and reenroll in plans frequently. Because health plans deliver their services through provider networks, this frequent switching can also create serious disruption in health care. The ACA does not require companies that sell Medicaid managed care plans to sell products in the Exchange as a condition of Medicaid participation; nor does the ACA require insurers that seek to sell qualified health plans in Exchanges to also participate in Medicaid.
  • The premium tax credit available through an Exchange is calculated based on a retrospective annual review of income. By contrast, Medicaid eligibility is based on a real-time eligibility determination based on current income.[2] Although the same income valuation methodology (known as MAGI) governs the two models, the two approaches to evaluating income differ markedly, making eligibility determinations across the two subsidy systems complex.
  • Paradoxically, individuals and families receiving Exchange tax credits who experience income decline to the point at which they become eligible for Medicaid may face premium tax credit recoupment liability under the ACA, if not immediately disenrolled and re-enrolled. This is because premium credits are not available to otherwise-qualified individuals who are “eligible” for “minimum essential coverage,” which includes Medicaid.[3]

Changes Made by the Affordable Care Act

The ACA provides states with an option known as the Basic Health Program (BHP),[4] which is designed to provide an alternative coverage pathway for the low-income population (i.e., for those with family incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level). The law directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a BHP that meets certain federal requirements. Under the program, a state may contract with one or more “standard health plans” to provide “at least” essential health benefits to the population eligible for BHP coverage. In order for a state to establish such a program, the law requires the Secretary to “certify” that:

  • monthly premiums as well as patient cost-sharing amounts charged to standard health plan enrollees will not be any greater in relation to their incomes than the amount that the same individuals would pay under the Exchange premium tax credit system;[5] and
  • standard health plans cover at least the essential health benefits  required of qualified health plans sold through the state Exchange.[6]

The law further provides that a “standard health plan” is one that is open only to eligible individuals and that, if offered by a licensed health insurance issuer, maintains a medical loss ratio of at least 85%.[7] The legislation also permits states to contract with HMOs, health insurance issuers, or “networks of health care providers established to offer services” under the program.[8] The term “eligible individual” is defined as an individual who:

  • is “a resident” of the state;
  • is ineligible for Medicaid and whose household income exceeds the Medicaid eligibility level but does not exceed 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) (or in the case of a lawfully present alien, whose income does not exceed 133% FPL but is ineligible for Medicaid based on alien status);
  • who does not qualify for minimum essential coverage; and
  • who is under 65 years of age.[9]

No individual can be eligible for the BHP unless the individual would be a “qualified individual” within a state health insurance Exchange,[10] and “eligible” individuals under the BHP may not use the state’s Exchange.

The ACA requires states to use a “competitive” contracting process that utilizes a negotiated approach to premiums, cost-sharing and benefits in addition to essential health benefits.[11] The ACA also requires a state to build certain factors into the competition, including:

  • innovation in the areas of care coordination for enrollees with chronic conditions, incentives for the use of preventive services, and establishment of provider/patient relationships that “maximize” patient involvement in health care decision-making;
  • allowance for differences in health care needs among enrollees as well as differences in the availability and accessibility of local providers;
  • consideration of the degree to which contractors maintain the attributes of managed care systems given the local health care markets in which they operate; and
  • use of performance measures for issuers of standard health plans that “focus on quality of care and improved health outcomes” and that require reporting of such measures to the state and enrollees in a “useful form.”[12]

The ACA also requires that “to the maximum extent feasible,” a state must make multiple standard health plans available[13] and must coordinate its BHP with its Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as well as other state-administered health programs.

The law requires that once the HHS Secretary determines that a state meets the BHP requirements, she must “transfer to the State for each fiscal year for which 1 or more standard health plans are operating within the state” an amount equal to 95% of the premium tax credits and the cost sharing reductions “that would have been provided for the fiscal year to eligible individuals enrolled in standard health plans in the state if such eligible individuals were allowed to enroll in qualified health plans through an Exchange….”[14]

The law further requires that the Secretary make this financial determination about how much is owed to the state on a “per enrollee basis” that takes into account “all relevant factors necessary to determine the value of the premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions that would have been provided to eligible individuals” including:

  • enrollee age and income;
  • whether enrollment is for self-only or family coverage;
  • geographic differences for average health care spending across rating areas;
  • reinsurance payments that would have been made if enrollment had been into a qualified health plan in an Exchange; and
  • whether any reconciliation would have occurred if the enrollee had been so enrolled.[15]

In making her determination, the Secretary is required to consider the experiences in states that enroll the target low-income population in their health insurance Exchanges. The Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), in consultation with the Office of Tax Analysis in the Department of the Treasury, must certify the methodology and the determination.[16]

The ACA further requires that funds received by the state be deposited into a trust fund established by the state that may be used only “to reduce the premiums and cost-sharing of, or to provide additional benefits for, eligible individuals enrolled in standards health plans” and bars the counting of funds held in trust as the state contribution toward any federal program (e.g., the required state share of Medicaid expenditures).[17]

Implementation

Agency and Key Dates

No specific implementation date is provided under the law. Because the basic health program would operate in lieu of a health insurance Exchange for eligible persons, implementing regulations may be issued as part of HHS’ issuance of Exchange regulations.

Key Issues

Certification process: What information will be required of states to secure approval and certification, and what will be the timeline and process? Specifically, since the program uses the Exchange experience on costs as the benchmark, how will certification work in advance of having sufficient state experience to properly gauge that premium and cost-sharing obligations will not exceed those applicable to similarly situated individuals in an Exchange?

Offering of plans by entities that are not health insurance issuers: What federal standards will be set for networks of health care providers that seek to offer a basic health plan under a state program?

The negotiation process and documenting innovation, health and resource differences, managed care use, and performance measurement: How will states be expected to demonstrate that they have negotiated around premium pricing, the introduction of innovations, adjustments for health and resource differences, the use of managed care arrangements, and performance measurement?

Offering multiple plans and the “maximum extent feasible” test: What test will the Secretary develop for measuring whether it is feasible for the state to offer more than one basic health plan?

Funds transfer system: How will the funds transfer system work? Since the transfer methodology uses Exchange experience as a point of reference, how will the methodology account for states that seek to establish a Basic Health Program prior to amassing state experience with an Exchange system?

Public involvement: Will the Secretary require evidence of public involvement in the decision to establish and operate a Basic Health Program prior to approving such a program?

Accounting for recoupment: What assumptions will HHS and Treasury use about the extent of recoupment that participants can be expected to experience, including both recoupment against individuals with incomes above Medicaid eligibility levels as well as recoupment against individuals who become eligible for Medicaid during an enrollment year? What level of recoupment will be assumed for individuals who move between Medicaid and the Basic Health Program more than once during an enrollment year?

Recent Agency Action

None

Authorized Funding Levels

The Basic Health Program represents mandatory federal spending and therefore is not subject to the annual authorization or appropriations process.


[1] Benjamin Sommers and Sara Rosenbaum, “Issues in Health Reform: How Changes in Eligibility May Move Millions Back and Forth Between Medicaid and Insurance Exchanges,” Health Affairs 30:2 (Feb. 2011) pp. 228-236.
[2] For an excellent brief on how the new approach to evaluating income will change Medicaid’s historic approach, see The New Rules for Determining Income Under Medicaid in 2014 (Kaiser Family Foundation) http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8194.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011).
[3] PPACA §1401, adding IRC 36B(c)(2)(A) and (B).
[4] PPACA §1331. For an excellent analysis of the option see Stan Dorn, The Basic Health Program Option Under Federal Health Reform: Issues for Consumers and States (Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.) at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412322-Basic-Health-Program-Option.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011).
[5] PPACA §1331(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).
[6] PPACA §1331 (a)(2)(B).
[7] PPACA §1331(b)(3).
[8] PPACA §1331(g).
[9] PPACA §1331(e).
[10] Id.
[11] PPACA §1331(c)(1).
[12] PPACA §1331(c)(2).
[13] PPACA §1331(c)(3).
[14] PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A)(i).
[15] PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A) and (B).
[16] PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A)(iii).
[17] PPACA §1331(d).
Benjamin Sommers and Sara Rosenbaum, “Issues in Health Reform: How Changes in Eligibility May Move Millions Back and Forth Between Medicaid and Insurance Exchanges,” Health Affairs 30:2 (Feb. 2011) pp. 228-236.
For an excellent brief on how the new approach to evaluating income will change Medicaid’s historic approach, see The New Rules for Determining Income Under Medicaid in 2014 (Kaiser Family Foundation) http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8194.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011).
PPACA §1401, adding IRC 36B(c)(2)(A) and (B).
PPACA §1331. For an excellent analysis of the option see Stan Dorn, The Basic Health Program Option Under Federal Health Reform: Issues for Consumers and States (Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.) at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412322-Basic-Health-Program-Option.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011).
PPACA §1331(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).
PPACA §1331 (a)(2)(B).
PPACA §1331(b)(3).
PPACA §1331(g).
PPACA §1331(e).
Id.
PPACA §1331(c)(1).
PPACA §1331(c)(2).
PPACA §1331(c)(3).
PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A)(i).
PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A) and (B).
PPACA §1331(d)(3)(A)(iii).
PPACA §1331(d).

No Comments

Public comments are closed.

On March 7, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published final regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s Basic Health Program (BHP) market option (PPACA §1331). On that date, CMS also published rules that set forth the BHP payment methodology and the data it will use to determine payments to states that establish certified BHP programs.
On September 25, 2013, the Obama Administration published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register (78 Fed. Reg. 59122) that implements §1331 of the Affordable Care Act, which directs the Secretary to establish a Basic Health Program (BHP). The long-delayed proposed rule reflects extensive consultation with stakeholders, a Request for Information (76 Fed. Reg. 56767) published on September 14, 2011, and a series of “listening sessions” to gather input. The comment period runs until 5 p.m., November 25, 2013. This update provides a background on the BHP and summarizes the proposed rule...
On February 25th, 2013, final regulations implementing the essential health benefit (EHB) provisions of the Affordable Care Act were published in the Federal Register (78 Fed. Reg. 12834-12872). The EHB rules, which amend 45 C.F.R., apply to all non-grandfathered individual and small group health plans sold after January 1, 2014, as well as Medicaid benchmark and benchmark-equivalent health plans. The EHB rules also apply to...
On February 6, 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a new series of ACA-related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The first two questions address the Basic Health Program (BHP). As described in an earlier Implementation Brief, the BHP was included in the ACA as a special state coverage option for low-income families and individuals. In answer to the question “When will the Basic Health Program be operational?”, CMS replied that the agency does not intend to propose implementing rules until sometime in 2013 and furthermore, that final rules will not be issued until 2014. The status of the Basic Health Program emerged as one of the subjects of a Senate Finance Committee’s ACA oversight hearing on February 14, 2013, during which Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who sponsored the legislative amendment creating the BHP, questioned CCIIO Director Gary Cohen on the timing of BHP guidance.
This Update summarizes the CMS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document issued on December 10, 2012.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a final rule and payment notice for the Basic Health Program (BHP). Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), many individuals will have an income too high to qualify for Medicaid, yet subsidies may not make their health insurance affordable. BHP, a program aiming to reduce churning between Medicaid and private coverage, helps to ensure continuity of care for individuals with fluctuating incomes. The rule allows for states to receive funding for BHP beginning in 2015.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a new rule outlining funding methodology for the Basic Health Program (BHP). BHP was created to provide an affordable insurance option for individuals earning between 133-200% of the federal poverty level. The new rule released by CMS was accompanied by a letter to State-Based Marketplaces (SBM) requesting information on the second-lowest-cost silver plan offered on the Marketplace, which will be used to help set the premium for BHP. This provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was delayed until January 2015 earlier this year.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided a timeline for the installation of the Basic Health Program (BHP) to Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), a champion of the model. Pursuant to Section 1331 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the BHP was intended to serve as a special state insurance option for low-income families and individuals, yet no deadline for HHS to create the BHP was stated in the statute. The timeline details key implementation events from now until January 1, 2015, the time at which the BHP is scheduled to become operational.
According to a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), federal officials are delaying until 2015 the Basic Health Program (BHP), a health care overhaul option that would enable states to use federal tax subsidies to cover low-income people (those with incomes between 139 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level) whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid. The BHP is an alternative to offering this population coverage through the exchanges that will begin operation in January 2014. Consumers receiving insurance through the BHP would not have to reimburse the federal government if their income fluctuates during the year. CMS officials intend to release BHP proposed rules for comment in 2013 and final guidance in 2014, in order for the program to begin operation in 2015. The FAQ covers a number of other topics as well. The document provides information regarding the increased federal matching rate for consumers newly eligible for Medicaid in 2014 and addresses coverage for pregnant women and children.
A new policy brief from Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation examines how the Basic Health Program (BHP) may enable states to offer eligible residents health insurance that is more seamless than coverage in the private insurance market. Because Medicaid eligibility and federal subsidies are determined by income compared to the federal poverty level, individuals can gain or lose eligibility for subsides as their incomes fluctuate. This phenomenon—known as churning—can be very disruptive to maintaining steady health insurance coverage. According to the report, it has been estimated that within six months of enrollment, more than one-third of all low-income adults (about 28 million people) may experience enough of a change in income to churn between Medicaid, buying insurance through an exchange, or losing eligibility for subsidies. Supporters of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) BHP argue that the program will make coverage more affordable for low-income people and has the potential for some states to save money. Opponents worry that the program could undermine the new state insurance exchanges and thus runs the risk of exposing states to financial risk. The report concludes that whether states decide to establish a BHP or not will depend on plans for Medicaid expansion and exchange establishment.