Email Us Home

Template 1
  • Commercial
    • Introduction
    • Practice Areas
    • Our Team
    • Case Results
    • FAQs
    • About Us
    • Blog
    • Contact Us
  • Personal Injury
    • Introduction
    • Practice Areas
    • Our Team
    • Case Results
    • FAQs
    • About Us
    • Blog
    • Contact Us
  • Personal Services
    • Introduction
    • Practice Areas
    • Our Team
    • Appellate Opinions
    • FAQs
    • About Us
    • Blog
    • Contact Us
  • Law Firm Blogs
    • Commercial Blog
    • Personal Injury Blog
    • Personal Services Blog
    • Securities Litigation Blog
  • Attorneys
    • Katharine A.R. Brookeman
    • Elizabeth P. Coughter
    • James P. Cox, III
    • Gary W. Kendall
    • John V. Little
    • Edward B. Lowry
    • Kevin W. Ryan
    • William C. Scott IV
    • M. Bryan Slaughter
    • Garrett M. Smith
    • David W. Thomas
    • Christine Thomson
    • Paul R. Thomson III
    • Ronald R. Tweel
    • J. Gregory Webb
    • Edward R. Slaughter
    • Former Principles
  • Firm Profile
    • About Us
    • History
    • Charlottesville Office
    • Roanoke Office
    • Office Administration

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (HR 3200): a Boon for Virginia Consumers?

user-pic By Garrett on October 12, 2009 11:07 AM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

      Introduced July 14, 2009 to the House of Representatives, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, otherwise known as HR 3200 (the lengthy text of which can be seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3200) provides many health care coverage improvements for Americans. Some of the provisions are smart and simple improvements of protections for consumers of health care insurance. One might be tempted to us as an example minimum standards for health insurance programs. However, as with all regulatory action, minimum standards must be regulated, and that reduces flexibility and adds costs which ultimately will be borne by consumers either in their premiums or through taxation. A better approach would be to rely on user-friendly, standardized, disclosures that present a menu of benefits, so that consumers could price shop in light of fair disclosures and evaluate what omissions and inclusions may be driving a plan's premium costs. Why not standardize the minimum benefits? An easy answer might focus on elective procedures that involve moral issues. On strictly religious grounds, some consumers may not want their premium payment to cover abortion services. Another example might focus on the age or gender of a consumer: an elderly man might choose not to have coverage for obstetrical or gynecological services, whereas a younger person might choose to omit coverage for geriatric services. The question is, do we want one size fits all policies, or mightn't consumers benefit from accepting certain risks in order to save premiums. Less controversial consumer protections would be requirements that coverage must be provided for a price that is not based on preexisting conditions, increased transparency, disclosures and clear notices.

 

      The similar Senate Bill, Affordable Health Choices Act S. 1679 (seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1679:) now contains a variety of amendments that have been survived the committee hearing. A good summary of the recent proposed amendments can be see here: http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/showhtml.jsp?url=usa/service-areas/health-care-reform/health-care-reform-pulse.htm#

 

      Criticism of the bill has been mixed, and good points are raised on both sides of the aisle. However, it is clear that America is suffering due to a cost of health care coverage. Both sides of the debate should focus on developing core areas on which we can all agree, and locking improvements into a bill we can all agree on.

Categories:

  • Commercial

Tags:

  • Affordable Health Choices Act,
  • Consumer Health Care,
  • Health Care,
  • HR3200

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.mhlrt.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/85

Leave a comment

Template 1

Search

Sign In

Authors

  • Garrett (21)
  • Katharine (3)
  • Kevin (4)
  • Paul, Roanoke, Virginia Attorney (35)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Garrett published on October 12, 2009 11:07 AM.

Forced Arbitration in Virginia was the previous entry in this blog.

Credit Card Companies Experiment with Annual Fees is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Monthly Archives

  • January 2010 (3)
  • December 2009 (3)
  • October 2009 (4)
  • September 2009 (2)
  • August 2009 (9)
  • July 2009 (6)
  • June 2009 (5)
  • May 2009 (6)
  • April 2009 (5)
  • March 2009 (10)
  • February 2009 (6)
  • January 2009 (4)
  • Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed