Skip to main content

Better Off With a Federal Exchange


As the December 14th and February 14th dates draw near for states to say whether they will create Affordable Care Act health insurance exchanges and what they will look like, the world seems upside down.

Traditional “states’ rights” advocates such as South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas all say they will let the federal government set up their exchange.  Historically “strong federal government” allies like Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, New York, and the District of Columbia are setting up their own exchanges.

In all, sixteen states so far have said they want the federal government to set up their exchange, while eighteen states and the District of Columbia have decided to run their own.  The rest are either undecided or looking to partner with the federal government.  No states are considering a multi-state exchange – so much for “selling insurance across state lines.”

The states that are deferring to the federal government cite a number of reasons.   Cost, uncertainty, and too-tight deadlines are the most common.

Politics is also a factor.  Of those sixteen states, only two – Missouri and New Hampshire – have Democratic governors.

But there’s another reason why people living in those states should be pleased that they are deferring to the federal government.  Historically, reluctant states don’t make the health and mental health of their citizens a governmental priority.

In this year’s list of the ten Best States for Your Health, five – Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont – are moving forward with state exchanges.  Three – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Utah, are still undecided.  Only two – New Hampshire and Maine – are opting for a federal exchange.

However, in this year’s list of the ten Worst States for Your Health, the results are subtly reversed.  Four – Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Louisiana – are opting for the federal exchange.  Only three – New Mexico, Nevada, and Mississippi – are planning for state-run exchanges.

That may not seem like a big difference.  But when you look at all the states that have decided, those currently opting to run their own exchanges have an average ranking of just over 20th in protecting the overall health of their citizens.  Meanwhile, states deferring to the federal government have an average ranking of over 29th in protecting the overall health of their citizens – over nine places worse.

The difference is just as clear when it comes to spending to protect the mental health of their citizens. 
States opting to run their own exchanges also have an average ranking of just over 20th when it comes to funding mental health services.  States deferring to the federal government have an average ranking of almost 30th – nearly ten places worse.

Keep in mind that if all 50 states chose one or the other and divided equally, the best possible average ranking would be 13th and the worst possible 38th.

You can view all the states in two new tables here.

Where health and mental health are concerned, “states’ rights” often means state-sanctioned neglect.
There are individual exceptions, of course.  Maine and Alaska historically spend well on mental health, but are opting for a federal exchange.  Nevada and New Mexico do poorly on protecting the overall health of their citizens, but are embracing state-run exchanges.

The take-home lesson, however, is clear.  If your state doesn’t want to create its own exchange, then you are probably better off with the federal exchange.

And if your state is still undecided, be careful about what you wish for.  Floridians, for example, would probably be better off with a federal exchange.  The state ranks 33rd in overall health and 49th in mental health spending.

On the other hand, undecided Pennsylvania is 8th in overall health and 4th in mental health spending.  There’s a much better chance that a Pennsylvania exchange would be better for its citizens than any the federal government could offer.

The reason for worry in the reluctant states has to do with the flexibility all states will be granted in setting up exchanges. 

Last week, the federal government published a new set of proposed rules governing the “essential benefits package” – the key components of all health insurance plans to be offered through the exchanges beginning in 2014.  States running their own exchanges will be given a great deal of latitude in determining just how rich these benefits will be.

And as the clock ticks toward the Valentine’s Day deadline, it’s hard to imagine new love coming from the states that have rejected our health and mental health so many times before. 

If you would like to schedule Paul Gionfriddo to speak to your group or meeting, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Missing Mental Health Element in the Ferguson Story

By now, everyone has heard the news from Ferguson, Missouri.  An unarmed 18 year old named Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer.  Michael Brown was black. Some of the events surrounding the shooting are in dispute.  But what isn’t in dispute is that for the past two weeks, a community has been torn apart by race – a community that until recently was best known for its proximity to St. Louis and its designation as a Playful City, USA . Picture credit: Health Affairs Media reports since the August 9 th shooting have focused almost entirely on one angle – race relations.  We’ve heard about unrest in the city, the National Guard, police in riot gear, and danger in the streets.  We’ve heard about the District Attorney’s ties to law enforcement, and concerns that a too-white Grand Jury may be racially motivated not to indict the police officer involved in the deadly shooting. But the media have been strangely silent about a different angle – this comm

Celebrating Larissa Gionfriddo Podermanski Five Years Later

My daughter Larissa died of Metastatic Breast Cancer five years ago, in May of 2018.  She had only two wishes at the end. One was that we plant a tree for her. We did - in a Middletown CT city park - and it has grown straight and tall. The other was that she not be forgotten. Larissa's family and friends took pains to reassure that she could not be forgotten. If you were fortunate enough to know Larissa, you would know why. Still, I wondered how I might celebrate her a little more now that some years have passed, while sharing some of her memorable spirit with others (some who knew her and others who did not), while reminding us why she was such an extraordinary woman. In early 2017, Larissa started a blog called Metastatically Speaking, through which she chronicled her life with MBC. Unfortunately - and through no one's fault - her blog disappeared some time after her death. So, if you search for it now, you can't find it.  However, I was fortunate enough to see and retain

Judgment Day

Ironic. I was not as nervous as you would think on April 23 rd .  Martin, my mother and I drove up to Dana Farber.  All weekend I wanted plan for Poland, Barbados and Florida, as we brainstormed ideas of what could be attainable or possible. I started to realize I looked pregnant… but that couldn’t be. When the appointment began I noticed it felt like a routine visit. Everything went smoothly, but what were we focusing on? It was this: if I did nothing the outlook for me was living three weeks to a few months longer. So, is that my only option, I wanted to know?   No, I was told we can try a low dose chemo and see how it works.   Since it is low dose, they said, it won’t do much harm, but we truly don’t know how it will work. It’s not a treatment we have used a lot at low dose and technically you are in liver failure, leaving you with limited options.   Of course, the goal would still be to get you to be stable; however, this is a blind treatment. We don’t know if this approach w