I don’t like cake, so I’ve long avoided using the adage “don’t eat cake”.Pie is everything dessert should be.Trying to achieve two mutually exclusive goals at the same time. There are people
In this case, the state government is trying to reduce health insurance premiums and increase benefits. As anyone who has taken a math class knows, it doesn’t count. Colorado politicians also want to eat their cake.
Because the carrier leaves the state, you will lose your health insurance plan in a month and pay more monthly premiums no matter which plan you choose. On average, next year’s premiums will increase by 10.4% for him. Each year since 2019, Colorado legislators have elected a new
Indemnification obligations that increased the cost of premiums in individual markets by 5.5% to 7.9% annually.
I don’t need acupuncture, plastic surgery for sex reassignment, HIV prevention drugs, or any of these new benefits, but I’m paying extra. Lawmakers promised lower-premium insurance plans to become more available when they passed the much-discussed Colorado Options Bill HB21-1232 in the last session. The law requires health insurers in the individual and small-group markets to offer low-cost, standardized health benefit plans that meet regulations set by law and state insurance commissions. The plan should reduce premiums by 5% in 2023, 2024 and 2025, for a total reduction of 15% from the baseline.
Lawmakers were so confident of success that the police campaign touted the bill as one of more than 100 ways the administration would save Colorados money. It turns out not so.Colorado Option is not the cheapest plan on state healthcare exchange
It’s not a plan, it’s a plan designed by a carrier.
This is because the Colorado Option Plan requires “free” perks such as primary care, mental health and substance abuse visits that are less preventative than traditional plans, while at the same time offering insurers lower premiums. because there is a need. These are mutually exclusive goals.
Benefits require higher premiums to cover additional costs.
In addition to indemnification obligations, the government has imposed some nonsensical and intrusive requirements on insurers. Insurers will work towards building “networks that are culturally responsive and reflect as much as possible the diversity of their members in terms of race, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation in the regions in which they are located.” is needed.
This means that healthcare providers must be recruited based on physical characteristics and gender identity so that they match the insured population. Some employees have to be entrusted with this pointless exercise, the cost of which is included in their premiums.
Frankly, I don’t need medical professionals like me. I am happy in the company of people who are good at their jobs.
Insurers are also forced to report on whether providers in their network have completed anti-bias training, as if the insurer were the accrediting body responsible for monitoring ongoing education classes. . Any additional costs will be borne by those who pay the premium, unless the awakened fairies pay what the lucky employee is tasked with counting those beans.
Imposing new mandates and price controls on insurers has not delivered the cost cuts promised by politicians. However, it is becoming more difficult for insurance companies to survive in this state. My insurer, Bright Health, and another insurer, Oscar Health, have retired and over 58,000 insurers are looking for new insurers.
As a writer and adjunct professor with variable monthly income, I need a low premium high deductible plan with no additional benefits I can’t afford. Will Congress admit its failure in its next session and give us self-employed Coloradoes a breather?
Krista L. Kafer is a weekly columnist for the Denver Post. Follow her on her Twitter. @Christapher
To write to the editor about this article, please review our guidelines on how to submit it online or by email or post.
