@onceuponA They are not expanding via ACA but expanding both number covered and benefits for childless adults in poverty.
@askellyphd @onceuponA Will be interesting to see…
posted on March 29, 2013 by
@askellyphd @onceuponA Will be interesting to see if anyone is willing to compromise, for optics or reality. Still plans would still compete
@askellyphd @onceuponA CMS could use its very broa…
posted on March 29, 2013 by
@askellyphd @onceuponA CMS could use its very broad authority over Exchanges, QHPs to create separate class of plans. Many tough issues
@onceuponA Agree it’s tough sell for providers too…
posted on March 29, 2013 by
@onceuponA Agree it’s tough sell for providers too, want higher rates than Medicaid. But technically plans would still be Exchange plans. š
@askellyphd @onceuponA It would for the commercial…
posted on March 29, 2013 by
@askellyphd @onceuponA It would for the commercial plans but not the Medicaid plans. Later are targeting the below 200% FPL pop anyway.
@onceuponA Exactly, paying Exchange plans serving…
posted on March 29, 2013 by
@onceuponA Exactly, paying Exchange plans serving Medicaid benies using Medicaid-like rates is only way to make it budget neutral for feds.
RT @onceuponA: Looks a lot like MCOs? MT @KipPiper…
posted on March 29, 2013 by
RT @onceuponA: Looks a lot like MCOs? MT @KipPiper: Keep Medicaid expansion costs via Exchanges low: Separate actuarial value calc. piperreport.com/blog/2013/03/0ā¦
