Share This Page

8 states, including Utah, OK'd to run health exchanges

| Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013, 9:48 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The federal government conditionally approved eight states to run health exchanges on Thursday, bringing the total to 20 states that will have the programs authorized by the 2010 federal health care law.

The newly approved states that will run their own exchanges are California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Vermont and Utah. Arkansas will partner with the federal government for its exchange.

Although states with Republican governors have fought the law, such as Texas, four of them — Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah — have begun the exchanges.

“I do think at lot of eyes are on Utah,” said Cheryl Smith, a director at Leavitt Partners, which advises states about how to create exchanges. Utah has had its own exchange since 2006. “I think it also helps that Idaho was there. I think that bodes well for other ‘red states.' ”

Former Utah governor and Health and Human Services Department secretary Mike Leavitt, a Republican, runs Leavitt partners.

To show their disapproval of the health care law, the majority of Republican-run states have not created exchanges. Some conservative groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, say the exchanges forces the states to give up insurance regulation and advise states to rebel against the law by refusing to take federal money to create the exchanges.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said residents of all 50 states would have access to a new marketplace in 10 months. Those who live in areas without a state-run exchange will be able to use the federal exchange.

A health exchange is a website that allows people to compare prices and benefits of health insurance plans before purchasing a plan through the website. The plans must meet federal guidelines laid out in the health care law.

Utah plans to keep working with HHS, and negotiations for a final plan are ongoing, Smith said. The conditional approval may reassure other Republican-run states who feared that “if Utah can't get it done, then it's hopeless for us,” she said.

The approval of Idaho and Utah shows that HHS is “desperate for good news,” said Michael Cannon, health policy expert for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that opposes the health care law. Utah's governor has asked HHS to let the state exchange remain virtually unchanged, Cannon said, while Idaho would have to break a state law prohibiting employers or employees from being penalized for not buying insurance.

No matter what states say about their independence running the exchanges, HHS will still control them, Cannon said. That's because HHS has final say over implementation. Arguments to the contrary, he said, are “just a smoke screen to get the states to do the heavy lifting on the exchanges.”

Not so, said Jay Angoff, who was the first HHS official to oversee the implementation of the state exchanges.

Utah, Angoff said, is a litmus test for future cases. Although Utah's exchange had differences with federal law, the state's latest proposal complies with HHS rules in ways it had not previously. It requires insurers to post four levels of insurance plans so consumers can easily compare benefits and costs and also requires insurers to follow federal pricing rules.

The Utah exchange, called Avenue H, now serves small businesses and not individuals, as is required by federal law.

“The application seems to indicate that Utah is willing to change those things, and that's a big step,” Angoff said. The state has until Feb. 1 to submit a more detailed plan showing it complies with the federal law.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.