Commentary

The 'Essential Health Benefits' Package


 

Question: The HHS has been criticized for giving the states too much flexibility. Is there a danger that the plans will not be comprehensive enough?

Mr. Howard: There’s always that danger. That’s one of the areas where we really need a little more definition of what the HHS is going to require. For example, we know that they are going to allow actuarial equivalence in the benefits. But we don’t know whether that will be within one of those 10 categories or across categories. And we don’t know how much variability they are going to allow. The adequacy of the benefit package is going to depend a lot on those subsequent decisions from the HHS.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Physicians Lack Time, Tools for Medicare's Cognitive Screening Benefit
MDedge Neurology
Brand Names Drove Differences in Part D Spending
MDedge Neurology
SGR Deadline on the Horizon: The Policy & Practice Podcast
MDedge Neurology
Survey: Doctors Aren't Always Honest with Patients
MDedge Neurology
President's Budget: Medicare, Medicaid to Help Reduce Deficit
MDedge Neurology
SGR Fix Unlikely This Year, Sen. Kyl Says
MDedge Neurology
Feds Recover $4 Billion in Fraudulent Payments
MDedge Neurology
State AGs Assess Health Reform's Individual Mandate
MDedge Neurology
HHS Delays ICD-10 Implementation
MDedge Neurology
Doctors Disappointed Again: Only a Short-Term SGR Fix
MDedge Neurology