Close Close
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

Regulation and Compliance > State Regulation

Nevada exchange head: costs too much

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Some state-based exchanges want to team up to take on the health insurance exchange administration gorilla.

Bruce Gilbert, the executive director of the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange, the agency that oversees Nevada’s Nevada Health Link exchange, says his state and others want to hear more about the multi-state exchange technology platform the Oregon exchange board is trying to set up.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the government agency that runs, has proposed charging the insurers on state-based exchanges that use systems a user fee of at least 3 percent per enrollee.

In Nevada, Gilbert says, the legislature has set the exchange user fee at 3 percent. That means that, under current law, the proposed user fee would eat up all the money that Nevada now uses for exchange marketing and exchange plan oversight, Gilbert says.

The cost is especially high given that provides lousy information reporting services, Gilbert adds.

“State-based marketplaces on the federal system do not have access to real-time or ad hoc reporting,” Gilbert says. “Whatever the informational needs of a state, the data reported will be that chosen by the federally facilitated marketplace and released when as it chooses.”

Gilbert describes his concerns in a written version of remarks prepared for an exchange board meeting. The exchange staff also talks about the fee concerns in an exchange financing update document.

CMS, an arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), set up the enrollment and enrollee system to provide Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) exchange services in states that are unwilling or unable to run their own exchange programs.

Some of the states that use the system, including Nevada, Oregon and Hawaii, originally tried to set up their own exchange enrollment systems but switched to using systems because they ran into serious technical problems.

Nevada and Hawaii, for example, still have exchange program boards and exchange marketing programs. They see themselves as having state-based exchanges that happen to use information technology (IT) systems.

Some Republican critics of PPACA have complained about CMS failing to charge state-based exchanges for use of services.

CMS first proposed setting the user fee at 3.5 percent of premiums in draft regulations released in November 2012. In the states in which handles all exchange duties, the insurers that issue the plans sold through an exchange pay the user fee.

In late December, when CMS proposed setting the user for issuers in a state-based exchange that uses at 3 percent of revenue, the agency said it could collect an additional amount for a state that wanted to use a portion of the user fee to pay for its own exchange-related expenses.

See also: CMS hates some agents and other draft 2017 PPACA parameters

CMS suggested that it could help states get used to the new fee system by charging them a user fee of just 1.5 percent or 2 percent of revenue for 2017.

See also: Web broker list grows

Feds shape Web broker battleground


Have you followed us on Facebook?


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