HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius faced Congress again Thursday, this time speaking before a House Oversight Committee health panel. She faced questions regarding so-called “rate shock” and Medicaid expansion, as well as more fall out from last week’s “train wreck” comment. Beyond that, the New York Times (4/26, Pear, Subscription Publication) reports that during a meeting with White House officials Thursday, Democratic Senators expressed concerned about the Administration’s implementation of the healthcare law. According to the Times, Democrats from both chambers say “members of their party were getting nervous that they could pay a political price if the rollout of the law was messy or if premiums went up significantly.” In addition to detailing the meeting Thursday, the article notes recent public comments of disapproval from Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Max Baucus of Montana, as well as HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ defense at Congressional hearings this week.
The Washington Times (4/26, Howell) report that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel on Thursday that the Administration “will meet its deadlines and is doing the best it can with what it has.” She added that she “does not expect delays in the state exchanges.” Sebelius also “acknowledged that money is tight, though she blamed Congress for not giving her the additional funding she requested this year to carry out the law.” Sebelius said, “Having failed in both of those efforts, through the work of the United States Congress, we are then using the resources available within the department to make sure we implement the law of the land.”
And in a separate account, the Washington Times (4/26, Howell) reports that Republican Rep. Andy Harris, a doctor, asked Sebelius “to declare whether a specific morning-after pill is an abortion-causing drug.” According to the Times, Harris “grilled” Sebelius about the issue, prompting her “to argue that non-religious employers should not be allow to impose their views on their employees.” Sebelius said the Administration is seeking a balance “by exempting houses of worship from the mandate and allowing religious nonprofits like universities and hospitals ask an insurer or third-party administrator to provide contraception through separate policies, which the employer does not manage or pay for.”
CQ (4/26, Attias, Subscription Publication) reports that at the hearing, Sebelius “reiterated Thursday that states can enter and exit the Medicaid expansion included in the health care law without losing their other Medicaid funds, responding to concerns from an Arkansas lawmaker.” Republican Representative Steve Womack noted that his state had just signed “‘something rather innovative’ into law this week that would allow Arkansas to expand Medicaid by providing coverage through an insurance exchange.” However, he “expressed concern ..about what would happen if his state later has to employ the ‘circuit breaker,’ as he referred to it, and stop the program.”
In another account of the hearing, CQ (4/26, Reichard, Subscription Publication) adds that following the news that Maryland’s dominant insurer, CareFirst Blue Cross/Blue Shield, is proposing a 25% rate hike for individual policies sold on exchanges starting in October, Republicans “wasted no time in calling attention” to it, noting that CareFirst “blamed the hike largely on the fact that the health law will require insurers to take all comers.” Among these Republicans was Maryland Republican Representative Andy Harris, who “confronted” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at the appropriations subcommittee hearing, asking her, “How am I going to tell [my constituents] that the Affordable Care Act was actually good for that 25-year-old healthy person?” Sebelius’ answer touched upon the fact that CareFirst will face a review for their proposal, and that the state would see more competition because of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, LifeHealthPro (4/26, Bell) reports HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during the hearing that “she has not seen much reaction to the 3.5 percent exchange user fee that HHS has proposed.” This means, according to the article, that “insurers may be comfortable with the fees” for carriers selling coverage on exchanges.
