Close Close
Sign In
Newsletters
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
Podcast Center Video Center Webcasts Resource Center Events
About ThinkAdvisor Contact Us Advertise With Us Asset & Logo Licensing Sitemap Terms of Service Privacy Policy Copyright © 2024 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ThinkAdvisor

Life Health > Health Insurance

Senate passes PPACA group definition bill by a voice vote

By Allison Bell

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

H.R. 1624, a bill that would change a small-group definition provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), sailed through the Senate Thursday.

Members of the Senate approved the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees (PACE) Act bill by a voice vote. The House approved the bill by a voice vote Monday.

Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., the lawmaker who introduced the bill, attracted 48 Democratic cosponsors for the bill in the House.

The White House has not yet said whether President Obama will sign the law. A strong PPACA supporter, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., inserted a statement into the Congressional Record after the House vote indicating that he agrees on the need for group definition fix but would prefer to see lawmakers come up with a temporary fix, rather than a permanent change in PPACA.

See also: Democrat proposes PPACA small-group definition alternatives

Some states have traditionally set the small-group cut-off at 50 employees, and some at 100.

Drafters of PPACA included a provision requiring all states to set the cut-off at 100 employees, in an effort to have PPACA small-group rules, including minimum benefits requirements and rate review requirements, apply to groups with 50 to 100 employees as well as to smaller employees.

Defenders of the provision, including Mike Kreidler, the Washington state insurance commissioner, say the employees in the big small groups ought to have the kinds of protections that provide for employees in smaller groups.

Opponents, including the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and the National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU), say requiring states to change their definitions could cause chaos in the small group market in some states.

See also: Why some small-group health submarkets may implode

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.