Administration Delay Of ACA Out-Of-Pocket Costs Caps Seen As “Setback.” As first reported on the front page of Tuesday’s New York Times , the Obama Administration has delayed another key aspect of the Affordable Care Act: the provision which caps consumers’ out-of-pocket expenses. The news is covered widely, with most focusing on the negative light this shines upon the law’s implementation. Indeed, most reports refer to the delay as a “setback,” noting that coupled with last month’s employer mandate delay, these postponements are starting to “pile up.” A number of sources add that Republicans have seized upon this news to strengthen their case against the law. Tuesday night, the CBS Evening News (8/14) reported that “something that has been buried” on the Department of Labor’s website since February “has suddenly come to light” and “could affect a lot of Americans.” It is a notice that says the Administration is delaying another part of the ACA, the provision which limits the “amount of money people have to pay out of their own pockets for healthcare.” Wyatt Andrews reported that those with employer-sponsored insurance were supposed to have out-of-pocket costs capped at $6,350 next year, but the Administration “for one year only is allowing a second cap of $6,350 for pharmacy benefits,” which exposes “some patients to a total of $12,700 in payments plus their premiums.” The White House “defended its decision pointing out that next year’s out-of-pocket pharmacy costs, even at $6,350, is still a good deal for patients.” In an article titled “Health-Law Delays Starting to Pile Up,” the Wall Street Journal (8/14, Schatz, Subscription Publication) reports that while Republicans have not been able to overturn or delay the ACA, corporate America has succeeded in postponing a number of its provisions. The piece focuses on the Department of Labor memo, but also adds that public support for the law has fallen in recent months while GOP opposition has remained steady. The Washington Times (8/14, Howell) calls the delay a “setback for Obamacare implementation” right in its headline, calling it “ill-timed” and predicting that it will leave officials “trying to convince consumers that the delays don’t signal an inability to carry out other parts of the law.” To this point, the piece quotes Department of Heath and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt, who said the ACA is still working to protect consumers from “the worst insurance company abuses, by banning discrimination based on pre-existing health conditions, ending lifetime and annual limits on what an insurance company will cover, and capping out-of pocket spending to protect Americans and their families.” The Hill (8/13, Seligman) “Healthwatch” blog also calls the move the “latest setback” in the Administration’s efforts to implement the ACA. In attempts to explain this delay, an Administration official said, “We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person’s out-of-pocket costs. They asked for more time to comply.” Bloomberg News (8/14, Dorning) echoes the “setback” sentiment, but does note that the postponement “applies only to group health plans such as those offered by employers and unions and only to plans which use independent managers to handle pharmaceutical or other benefits,” according to an official who wished to remain anonymous. The Washington Examiner (8/13, Hughes) reports that Republicans on Tuesday “trumpeted what they view as a second fatal blow to Obamacare” after attention was drawn to the delay. GOP leaders “were already getting traction from the Obama administration’s decision to delay until 2015 the mandate requiring larger employers to purchase health insurance for their employees.” The Daily Caller (8/13, May) says the “revelation” comes at a “tenuous time” for the Administration as it “tries to keep the ball rolling in preparation for the opening of the health care exchanges on Oct. 1 and continues to face Republican opposition to the sweeping law.” The Los Angeles Times (8/14, Terhune) notes that in addition to Republicans, “some patient advocates expressed concern about the delay, saying certain consumers could face crippling medical bills without the stricter spending limits in the law.”
Posted on: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:13:50 +0000