Implementation of HIPAA:

State-Designed Mechanisms for Group-to-Individual Portability

HEHS-98-161R: Published: May 20, 1998. Publicly Released: May 20, 1998.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

William J. Scanlon
(202) 512-7114
contact@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on alternative state approaches to implementing the group-to-individual portability provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

GAO noted that: (1) most states include as part of their alternative mechanisms regulations of premium rates, a requirement for risk spreading, or a subsidy; (2) designed to moderate the high rates anticipated for the less healthy, high-cost HIPAA-eligibles, these methods are used in almost all of the 37 alternative mechanism states--of which 22 employ a high-risk pool and 15 have a guaranteed-issue requirement for carriers; (3) in contrast, the federal rules, under which 13 states operate, do not address premium rates or contain an explicit risk-spreading requirement under all circumstances; (4) under the risk-pool approach, eligible individuals who have lost group coverage are guaranteed a choice of coverage options within a state's high-risk pool program; (5) most of the 22 states using high-risk pools had them in place before HIPAA was enacted; to meet federal criteria for an acceptable alternative mechanism, states merely had to modify the rules; (6) each state using the risk-pool approach caps premium rates for coverage in the pool at 200 percent or less of the rate that a healthy individual would pay in the individual insurance market; (7) seven states have a 200-percent cap, 14 states have a 125- to 175-percent cap, and 1 state has a 100-percent cap; (8) a subsidy mechanism, typically assessments on health insurance carriers, spreads the additional costs of the less healthy across multiple carriers; (9) under the guaranteed-issue approach in 15 states, certain carriers must offer individual market coverage to HIPAA-eligible individuals; (10) however, in contrast to some federal fallback states, most states with the guaranteed-issue requirement also try to moderate rates, often as part of state insurance reforms predating HIPAA; (11) some of these states regulate premiums and others explicitly require risk spreading; (12) six states subject coverage available to HIPAA-eligible individuals to some form of community rating; that is, with limited exceptions, all individuals are charged the same price for coverage; (13) three states use rate banding or other premium regulations that allow rates to vary within specified bounds; (14) three states cap premium rates at 150 to 200 percent of the standard rate; (15) another two states do not regulate rates directly but use an explicit risk-spreading requirement that may moderate rates for HIPAA-eligible individuals indirectly; and (16) finally, two states' alternative mechanisms contain neither premium rate regulation nor an explicit risk-spreading requirement.

Oct 18, 2017

Oct 4, 2017

Oct 3, 2017

Sep 29, 2017

Sep 13, 2017

Sep 12, 2017

Sep 8, 2017

Sep 7, 2017

Looking for more? Browse all our products here