Bill to repeal Colorado health insurance exchange passes first test

But repeal faces uphill battle from here

Bill to repeal Colorado health insurance exchange passes first test

Updated to include comment from Connect for Health Colorado on enrollment practices.

After a nearly four-hour hearing, the state Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday night gave its blessing to repealing Connect for Health Colorado, the state health benefit exchange. That earned the committee’s Republicans cries of “shame! shame!” from a few witnesses who stayed until the votes were finally cast.

The 3-2 vote was along party lines in the Republican-controlled committee. The bill, sponsored by first-year lawmaker Sen. Jim Smallwood of Parker, will next be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

But the proposal faces near-insurmountable challenges and is almost certainly headed for defeat in the Democratic-controlled House. If it makes it that far.

Topping the challenges: its cost. The measure’s fiscal analysis estimates the first year cost of the repeal will be about $2.6 million, and that’s just for state agencies, largely for reprogramming computer systems. That doesn’t include costs for closing down the exchange itself. That could run as much as $23 million, according to Connect for Health Executive Director Kevin Patterson, based on what it has cost other states to close down their exchanges and connect to the federal system.

That’s a big pill to swallow at a time when Gov. John Hickenlooper and legislative budget-writers are looking for ways to close a $500 million gap in the 2017-18 state budget.

There are still 12 states, including Colorado, with their own state-based exchanges. Several states have closed their exchanges and switched to the federal Affordable Care Act website to handle the health insurance plans. Among the most recent states to do so are Kentucky and Nevada.

More than 175,000 Coloradans signed up for new health or dental insurance, or signed up to continue existing insurance, during the most recent enrollment period that ended on Feb. 3, with about 62 percent in line for federal subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. Connect for Health Colorado said the enrollment numbers represent about a 12 percent increase over 2016.

Michael Schneider of Denver was among many witnesses who shared stories about how the exchange has made their lives better. Schneider lost his wife in 2012 to cancer, just a few months before the exchange opened for business. He told The Colorado Independent that because of pre-existing conditions, their health insurance cost about $3,000 per month. Between the premium cost and medical bills, his retirement savings were wiped out.

Then came the exchange. He said he listened to the testimony of those who had trouble navigating the exchange website — some said it took four hours or more and then they got kicked off the website anyway — but that wasn’t his experience. Schneider said the personal service he got from a broker on the 16th Street Mall helped him figure out what he needed, and he’s been covered, for about $240 per month, ever since the exchange opened for business in 2013.

But the exchange has not been without problems. Two audits, one by the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, and another by the Colorado state auditor, pointed to cost overruns and mismanagement. The CMS audit in January recommended the exchange pay back $9.7 million due to those problems.

Laura Hays, a software engineer, said she worked for Connect for Health Colorado for four months in the summer of 2015. She left due to a “moral conflict” over what she said she saw at the exchange. She claimed the exchange fudged its enrollment numbers, citing as an example, a family of six that signs up for four different products, which she said would be counted as 24 enrolled lives. “I’m not opposed to the concept of the exchange,” Hays told the committee. “I’m opposed to how it was implemented.” Connect for Health CEO Patterson, who testified after Hays, did not address her allegations. The Independent has sent Patterson an email requesting comment.

Update — Luke Clarke, spokesman for Connect for Health Colorado, told The Colorado Independent Wednesday that the organization had not heard of these allegations until Tuesday’s hearing. “We take these enrollment numbers pretty seriously,” Clarke said. Enrollment is reported to the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services on a weekly basis during open enrollment, monthly and quarterly throughout the rest of the year. If the former employee wants to come forward with her evidence, Clarke said, they would look into it.

And the exchange has lost some of those who originally supported it, including the Colorado chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business. NFIB chapter head Tony Gagliardi recalled the heat he took in 2011 from Republican lawmakers for backing the exchange. In 2011, 64 percent of NFIB members in Colorado supported the exchange’s creation. Today, 70 percent want to see it repealed, Gagliardi said.

Then there’s the fear factor. If the exchange goes away, Democrats question what would happen to the 175,000 Coloradans who get insurance through the exchange. Smallwood’s bill would repeal the state exchange and transfer Coloradans to the federal system, but Congressional Republicans and the President have vowed to repeal the federal Affordable Care Act. Given that uncertainty, now is not the time to repeal the exchange, argued state Sen. Lois Court, a Denver Democrat.

Finance Committee Chair Sen. Tim Neville of Littleton pointed out that whatever happens with the federal system, his responsibility is to Colorado taxpayers. He was among the committee’s three Republicans who voted to send the bill on to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

Photo credit for rally against the repeal, January 31, 2017 by Marianne Goodland

Like this story? Steal it! Feel free to republish it in part or in full, just please give credit to The Colorado Independent and add a link to the original.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.



About the Author

Marianne Goodland

has been a political journalist since 1998. She covered the state capitol for the Silver & Gold Record from 1998 to 2009 and for The Colorado Statesman in 2010-11 and 2013-14. Since 2010 she also has covered the General Assembly for newspapers in northeastern Colorado. She was recognized with awards from the Colorado Press Association for feature writing and informational graphics for her work with the Statesman in 2012.

2 Comments

  1. MS on said:

    What you aren’t looking at, and have failed to report, were Senator Smallwood’s reasons for introducing the repeal bill. Since 2014, the number of carriers that opt to have plans on the marketplace has dwindled significantly, leaving consumers with fewer and fewer choices, and higher and higher premiums. Individual health insurance premiums increased for 2017 by a minimum of 20%, and upwards of 40% in some cases. One carrier on the small group market saw a significant uptick of new small business group cases come to them for January 1 — all small businesses that had previously disbanded their benefits plan because of the guaranteed availability and perceived affordability of individual coverage. It’s simply no longer the case, even with the Advanced Premium Tax Credits, that individual coverage is more affordable than group insurance.

    While I am an advocate for the Affordable Care Act and do think that full repeal of the law would be a mistake, repealing a system that is failing, which Connect for Health Colorado is, is the more responsible course of action to take.

  2. Will Morrison on said:

    And you’re going to leave us with exactly WHAT, republicans? All you idiots have been shouting is “repeal and replace” but when ANYONE asks you what you will REPLACE the ACA with, you have NOTHING.

    And why is that? Because the ACA IS your plan. The Heritage Foundation came up with it, Mitt Romney put it in place in MA, and then you people put the name “Obamacare” on it so you could saddle Obama with it as a negative.

    Guess what? It’s actually a LOT better than the miserable “profit at all cost” system we had before, and people prefer it to your other “market driven” nonsense. But the thing is, you haven’t even mentioned anything else to replace anything with. It’s all the rush to repeal, and then to hell with US.

    Thanks, republicans, but as we say, who the hell asked you?

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>