Who will administer Texas’ health insurance exchange?

As we know, one of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act is the creation of health insurance exchanges for those who are currently uninsured and need assistance in getting it. The states are supposed to operate these exchanges, and that means some kind of action needs to be taken to get it up and running. In particular, some entity needs to be responsible for it. State Rep. John Zerwas, the chair of the House Select Committee on Federal Legislation, thinks that a new agency may need to be created for this purpose.

Zerwas, of Richmond, said he was not sure yet if the new entity would be a commission or an independent agency or something else.

But he said he does believe an organization other than the state Department of Insurance or the Health and Human Services Commission will be needed because neither agency has the capacity to take on the task.

Because of so many unknowns, Zerwas was unable to say how much money and how many people would be needed.

Zerwas added that one model could be the authority that handles a health insurance exchange in Massachusetts, the only state that currently requires residents to buy insurance.

Massachusetts Health Connector, an independent state agency that helps residents find health care coverage, opened in 2006 with $25 million in seed money appropriated by the Massachusetts Legislature. It has about 50 employees and generates its own revenue, spokesman Dick Powers said.

In Texas, legislative action would be needed to create an entity to oversee an exchange , Zerwas and other lawmakers said.

“I would be receptive to being the author,” Zerwas said.

Zerwas was an unconvincing critic of the health care legislation as it was being crafted and debated, but I have no reason to think he’d do anything but a good job figuring this out; State Rep. Garnet Coleman is also on this committee, which is an even stronger reason for optimism. I don’t have a preference at this time for how this should be approached, but with any Texas agency, the main concern is always oversight. The list of state agencies that have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted without strict supervision is a long one, and though that’s more than partially the fault of the guy who picks the heads of these agencies, this isn’t exactly a new problem. So let’s please try to get this right.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Budget ballyhoo and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Who will administer Texas’ health insurance exchange?

  1. James M Brown says:

    The New Insurance exchange will have to verify the income of individuals and couples. I also believe at some point the insurance exhange will need proof the children or other household residents live with the insurance applicant. These two requirements will slow the process and backlog it. I know you dont want to have HHSC run this program but they are experienced in verifing income. Maybe HHSC or the new agency could do the public option applicants and the insurance companies verfy the other income levels. A web site like Utah has that lists insurance companies and policy information is also needed. Employers with less than 50 employees would also need to go thruough the state agency. What a program with lots of room for cost saving.
    The other idea is to have the insurance company verfy income, sell the correct policy and the new state agency monitor this process. This way we have a smaller state agency and have private business involved sharing the costs that produce the profit. If an insurance company doesn’t perform to standards the public money used is recouped. Also if you wanted to open a McDonalds you would pay a franchise fee. Why not have the insurance carrier pay a franchise fee or bond to assure they no this is not free money. If the insurance carrier did not meet performance standards then they would loss their bond money and be barred from the exchange for a time period. The new state agency will be responsible for training the insurance staff(which would be the trainers the insurance company hired) and monitoring the standards given to the exhange.
    The advantages would be less state government and COST. I understand the feds will not pay the administrative costs of this program. Also our citizens would have more options and places to go to get coverage. The franchise fees could be used to pay for the state training and monitoring staff. These could be contracted employees if necessary. Let me know what you think. James M Brown

Comments are closed.