Lawmakers wise to look at Vermont Health Connect alternatives, Speaker says

Vermont Speaker of the House Rep. Shap Smith, D-Morristown. Photo by Roger Crowley/for VTDigger

Vermont Speaker of the House Rep. Shap Smith, D-Morristown. Photo by Roger Crowley/for VTDigger

House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown, says Vermont Health Connect can’t continue to underperform in perpetuity, and at some point the state will need to “fish or cut bait.”

The ongoing payment and billing problems customers are having and the inability for them to make changes to their coverage or information quickly and easily is very troubling, Smith said in a recent interview with VTDigger.

“There are legitimate reasons to think that many of the issues are going to be corrected but we don’t know that for a fact. So at this point in time, I think it’s important for all the business markets and, quite frankly, for individuals to know they’re not shoehorned into something that they don’t think is working correctly,” he said.

State officials have said the automated change of circumstance function, the source of much of the exchange’s frustrations, will go live in April. That will end the costly and labor-intensive process in which state employees and contractors enter those changes manually.

If that’s the case, the conversation about alternatives may prove unnecessary, Smith said, but lawmakers can’t count on that happening given the exchange’s history.

One option Smith floated is to see if there’s a way to allow people in the individual market to purchase insurance directly from the carriers participating in the exchange, the same way that small businesses do.

The challenge there, Smith said, is whether the state and carriers can find an alternative mechanism to determine people’s eligibility for subsidies or Medicaid when they sign up, and he acknowledged such an alternative would rely heavily on the carriers’ willingness to participate.

Smith said the House will also give serious consideration to Rep. Patti Komline’s proposal to transition from the current state-based exchange to a new category of exchange called a supported state-based marketplace (SSBM). Several other states, including Oregon and Nevada, are using an SSBM, but there is a dearth of information from the feds about how they work.

Smith said he was part of a conversation with officials in Oregon to find about more about how SSBMs work, and though he’s not sold, he hopes the House Health Care Committee will continue to weigh it as an option.

“It’s not clear to us that that mechanism is one that would work for the Medicaid populations, and it probably would still require us to have Medicaid software in place,” he said.

He’s also concerned Vermont could lose the ability to offer additional subsidies on top of what the feds provide, if they rely more heavily on the federal exchange. Another question is whether the transition could happen before the next open enrollment period in November.

Then there’s the matter of the the King v. Burwell Supreme Court case that could prohibit states using the federal exchange from offering subsidies at all. Smith said he’s not as sure as some others in the Legislature and elsewhere that an SSBM exchange would bypass a court ruling against the Obama administration.

Others who are calling for Vermont to join the federal exchange are “too cavalier” in discounting a loss for the president at the hands of the Supreme Court, he said, saying the case is in his mind a “jump ball.”

However, the current state of affairs at Vermont Health Connect isn’t sustainable or fair to those required to use it, he said. After the high court rules, which it’s expected to this spring, if the exchange isn’t working as advertised, it will be time to look for other options, Smith said.

“I think it’s going to be really important to see what happens in May, and at some point in time you’ve got to fish or cut bait,” the speaker said.

Morgan True

Leave a Reply

30 Comments on "Lawmakers wise to look at Vermont Health Connect alternatives, Speaker says"

1000

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Wendy Wilton
1 year 7 months ago

VT Health Connect has cost nearly $200 million to set up and will cost an additional $80 million to operate next FY. The legislature has sufficient time to plan the conversion to the federal exchange in FY 16 by preparing and discussing a bill pending the King vs. Burwell case.

The state of NH has implemented the exchange via the Feds for 10% of our cost and they have a population double VT.

Given the history of exorbitant costs and malfunction of VHC, why wouldn’t we want to plan to move to the federal system?

1 year 7 months ago

Just imagine how much better shape the state would be fiscally if we hadn’t spent 100 plus million on VHC.

Wendy Wilton
1 year 7 months ago

No kidding.

joe wolak
1 year 7 months ago

“One option Smith floated is to see if there’s a way to allow people in the individual market to purchase insurance directly from the carriers participating in the exchange, the same way that small businesses do. ”

YES! YES! YES! Why are Vermont and the District of Columbia the only places that force residents who do not qualify for assistance to go through their exchange? In the 49 other states, residents who do not need financial help can buy insurance directly through a carrier.

Joyce Wilson
1 year 7 months ago
Joe, Also restore both the individual and the small group insurance market for under 50 employees in Vermont. Vermont is the ONLY state that forces both individuals and small businesses to purchase “exchange insurance”! When the businesses under 50 employees have been purchasing directly from MVP and BCBS in Vermont, it still is “exchange insurance” that we are purchasing. By forcing the small groups and individuals to purchase “exchange insurance”, it has not held down the costs as hoped for anyone! For 2015, “exchange insurance” had almost a 11% increase for MVP and BCBS just shy of 8% increase. It… Read more »
Representative Patti Komline
1 year 7 months ago

In July Rep. Heidi Scheuermann and I called for the Governor’s Administration to allow people who don’t receive subsidies to direct enroll with their insurance carriers. We’ve been constantly pushing for this for six months now and have also introduced a bill on this issue.

The insurance companies can provide the service. The Chief of Healthcare Reform reported in the following article that this group of people aren’t his priority: http://vtdigger.wpengine.com/2014/07/29/scheuermann-komline-call-change-allow-individuals-vhc-enroll-directly-insurers/.

Just set these people free for crying out loud. Then they can focus on the thousands who are still in Vermont Exchange Change of Circumstance Queue Hell.

Joyce Wilson
1 year 7 months ago
Representative Komline, To just enroll directly with MVP or BCBS as suggested with your bill does not solve the problem as we still would have “exchange insurance”. Vermont is the only state that forces anyone to purchase “exchange insurance”. When we go directly to MVP or BCBS as a small business, we still are purchasing “exchange insurance”. The people that receive subsidies in the exchange are protected by income percentage limits so the cost of premiums does not rise. Meanwhile as the individuals without subsidies and businesses stuck with just exchange insurance must absorb the total premium increase. These is… Read more »
Ron Pulcer
1 year 7 months ago
Perhaps the original “reason” citizens not qualifying for a subsidy were still required to enroll through VHC exchange, versus directly with insurance company, was that VT was attempting to customize the VHC systems to work within an “eventual” Single Payer environment. But since the Governor has (for now) backed away from his campaign promise of Single Payer, there doesn’t seem to be a need any longer to require all customers to go through VHC. It would seem that if people could go directly through insurance company, and as long as the insurance company provided the “official” verification that person /… Read more »
Karen McCauliffe
1 year 7 months ago
Ron, You seem to have missed Joyce’s major point. Her point is that Vermonters should be allowed to purchase non-exchange health insurance products like residents in every other state are allowed, and as intended by the ACA (Obamacare) law. The Vermont legislature voted to take this right away from individuals and small businesses and has limited them to purchasing only the insurance products offered in the Health Connect exchange, whether the purchase it through the exchange web site or directly through an insurance agent. See my comment below for a more lengthy explanation, that was posted on February 7, 2015… Read more »
Ron Pulcer
1 year 7 months ago

Karen,

I was not disagreeing with Joyce. I was merely pointing out “perhaps” why the Legislature decided to do things differently than other U.S. States. I already knew that other states have this option. Now that that “reason” (Single Payer) is no longer being pursued, I concur that there isn’t anything now that should hold back VT Legislators from allowing other insurance alternatives.

Kathy Callaghan
1 year 7 months ago

“So at this point in time, I think it’s important for all the business markets and, quite frankly, for individuals to know they’re not shoehorned into something that they don’t think is working correctly,” he said.”

Statements like this are amazing. The business markets and individuals ARE shoehorned into something that does not work correctly! And they have been for two years! Reality check here?

Dave Bellini
1 year 7 months ago

The exchange WOULD have worked perfectly if, the people running it had gotten pre-k when they were young.

Jim Christiansen
1 year 7 months ago

Best comment ever!

Glenn Thompson
1 year 7 months ago

Agreed!

Paul Lorenzini
1 year 7 months ago

That made me laugh, thanks!

chuck gregory
1 year 7 months ago

None of this would be happening if we go to a single payer system. All the Exchange does is funnel even more money to for-profit insurers– although technically BC/BS, MVP and CIGNA are not “for-profit” in Vermont, they are guaranteed 15% for “administrative costs,” which for BC/BS translated to $3.2 million for CEO compensation and trustee
“expenses.”

Dan McCauliffe
1 year 7 months ago
Chuck, Do you realize the single payer health care model is failing. Even in socialistic countries like Sweden, more citizens are buying private health insurance as the single payer government system can not adequately meet their needs (mostly due to very long waiting times). Switzerland and the Netherlands have two of the best health care systems in the world. They both rely on competition between health insurers. So for you and all the others who want a single payer health care system, I suggest you read about the health care systems elsewhere. It should be a real eye opener for… Read more »
Karen McCauliffe
1 year 7 months ago
Please realize that residents in the other 49 states can buy health insurance products that differ from their exchange insurance products, outside their Obamacare health insurance exchanges. What Shap Smith is suggesting is to allow individuals to purchase “Health Connect Exchange insurance” directly from MVP and BC/BS. This is not the same as the other 49 states where individuals and small businesses can buy health insurance products that differ from their Obamacare exchange insurance products. Shap’s suggestion would still limit individuals and small businesses to “Health Connect Exchange insurance products”, but they would be allowed to purchase them directly from… Read more »
1 year 7 months ago
Please note that the ACA prohibits what some legislators are calling for (directly signing up with the insurance carrier). The only real fix is to end the mandate on all Vermonters and Vermont Businesses. 45 CFR 155.110 – Entities eligible to carry out Exchange functions. § 155.110 Entities eligible to carry out Exchange functions. (a) Eligible contracting entities. The State may elect to authorize an Exchange established by the State to enter into an agreement with an eligible entity to carry out one or more responsibilities of the Exchange. Eligible entities are: (1) An entity: (i) Incorporated under, and subject… Read more »
bob zeliff
1 year 7 months ago
Before we start to hop scotch around looking at alternative…which also might very well have other problems or un intended consequences…. Lets understand what the problems with health connect REALLY are. Vermonters can take the truth. Facts please! There has been very little in the press about the root causes of the problems. Details of specifically what next needs to be done, what the effort is, what the risks are. We the public have only seen very superficial..it doesn’t work…we will fix it…then only to find it still does not work! The Administration and by the professionals in the State… Read more »
1 year 7 months ago

Hi Bob,
I agree that state officials have not done enough to explain why the problems with the exchange persist.
But it looks like you missed this report by Morgan True that explains the root causes.
http://vtdigger.wpengine.com/2014/03/16/special-report-went-wrong-states-health-care-exchange/
Anne

Hilary Cooke
1 year 7 months ago
Anne’s link to the Morgan True piece is worth a look. It is fun…or is it sad?…to read the comments from a year ago…same folks defending the performance of the VHC then and now willing to say that it was worth the try. I don’t know anyone who is against a better value proposition for the finance and delivery of health care for Vermonters. Nobody wants to be the skunk at the garden party, but criticisms of this administration’s health care reforms were obvious from the get go. In the meantime, agenda driven navigators have replaced value driven brokers; their… Read more »
bob zeliff
1 year 7 months ago
I did miss that excellent report. My apology to VT Digger and Morgan True!! BUT I do think we need a follow up now, a year later. Has Vermont been successful in fixing these problems? Do we have better more experienced staff in place to lead the projects. Is there an update State Wide IT long term plan? The one I looked up a while ago was not adequate. I think is would be great if the Vermont Administration and IT leadership publish a report of errors/missed steps, corrections, current status and a road map for the future. This would… Read more »
Bob Elliot
1 year 7 months ago

Bob, You didn’t miss the report, as you made a couple of comments on it. Perhaps you forgot about it.

Stuart Lindberg
1 year 7 months ago

Unchain the free market. Allow Vermonters to purchase health insurance across state lines. Encourage health savings accounts. Competition is proven to drive down costs for consumers.

Bill Dunnington
1 year 7 months ago
Every school of business and government in the country should use the VHC experience to date as a case study in policy-to-program failure. First prize for fiscal lunacy, we-can-do-it arrogance, piss poor management, wrong development approach, technical and PM incompetence, etc. Who in their right mind releases a new product except in very measured, iterative, scope and scale contained fashion – until the bugs are out? Maybe Vt could “lead” a fish-or-cut-bait health care workout – like a classic GE workout – after the supreme court rules, when federal money is a known entity. Time in advance to take stock,… Read more »
Christopher Daniels
1 year 7 months ago

there are numerous examples, both by private companies and governments, who roll out products prior to perfection. Microsoft (every Windows operating system) Apple (the most recent ios for mobile platforms. GM. Ford. Military weapons such as the space defense program. Aircraft such as the F-35. The list goes on.

Christopher Daniels
1 year 7 months ago

when are we going to claw back money from CGI, the private, for-profit, company that built the failed exchange?

Christopher Daniels
1 year 7 months ago

Folks like to rant here about accountability, the infallibility of the free market, and how the state does nothing right. Yet not a word on how this private, for profit company billed for a product if failed to provide. That’s called fraud.

walter moses
1 year 7 months ago

I agree Mr. Daniels. Who has something to lose if the State goes after CGI? We may never know, but this won’t be forgotten.

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Lawmakers wise to look at Vermont Health Connect alternatives, Speake..."