Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC--
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD--
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone (800) 743-3951.
Today, consumers with current or past medical problems can be denied health insurance coverage in the vast majority of individual (nongroup) markets (45 states). Similarly, individuals and small employers often find that they have few protections in terms of the premiums that issuers can charge them. For example, in the individual market, 43 states allow health status rating and 48 states allow age rating (often unlimited). While 37 states explicitly allow gender rating, three states that prohibit gender rating do not require maternity coverage in all individual market policies, meaning that, since maternity coverage requires additional premium in those states, a total of 40 states allow some form of gender rating in practice. In the small group market, 38 states allow health status rating, 48 states allow age rating (often unlimited), 35 states allow gender rating, and 37 states allow industry rating.
Sections 2701, 2702, and 2703 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), as added and amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act), and section 1312(c) of the Affordable Care Act address these problems by extending guaranteed availability (also known as guaranteed issue) protections so that individuals and employers will be able to obtain coverage when it currently can be denied, by continuing current guaranteed renewability protections, by prohibiting the use of factors such as health status, medical history, gender, and industry of employment to set premium rates, by limiting age rating, and by prohibiting issuers from dividing up their insurance pools. These reforms are effective for plan years (group
The implementation of these proposed rules will ensure that every American, for the first time, will have access to affordable health insurance coverage notwithstanding any health problems they may have. In addition, also for the first time throughout the nation, health insurance issuers will be prevented from charging individuals and small employers higher premiums due to enrollees' health status or gender. CMS is issuing these proposed regulations to provide the necessary guidance to implement these important consumer protections included in sections 2701, 2702, and 2703 of the PHS Act and section 1312(c) of the Affordable Care Act.
In addition, PHS Act section 2723 provides CMS with enforcement authority with respect to health insurance issuers (in certain instances) and group health plans that are non-federal governmental plans in connection with the various health insurance and group health plan standards added by the Affordable Care Act. The proposed rules would make non-substantive changes that clarify the processes that CMS currently uses to enforce such standards. These technical changes seek to eliminate confusion among states, issuers, non-federal governmental group health plans, consumers, and others concerning CMS's enforcement processes.
The proposed rule would also include proposed policy for enrollment in catastrophic plans that are available for young adults and people who would otherwise find health insurance unaffordable.
The proposed rule would also revise the timing of the submission of requests for state-specific thresholds and the effective dates of such thresholds; require that health insurance issuers submit data on proposed rate increases in a form and manner to be determined by CMS, and amend the requirements for a state to have an Effective Rate Review Program. We are proposing these changes to align with the timing of rate submissions of qualified health plans (QHPs), as defined under section 1301 of the Affordable Care Act, in the Exchanges, and to adjust rate review to meet its additional purpose of helping to promote fair market competition beginning in 2014. The law requires that, beginning in 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), in conjunction with states, monitor premium increases of health insurance coverage offered through an Exchange and outside of an Exchange. The Secretary will monitor these increases to identify patterns that could signal market disruption and assist in oversight of the new market-wide rating reforms created by the Affordable Care Act, which are effective on January 1, 2014.
The substantive authority for these proposed rules is generally sections 2701, 2702, 2703, 2723 and 2794 of the PHS Act and sections 1302(e), 1312(c), and 1560(c) of the Affordable Care Act. PHS Act section 2792 authorizes us to promulgate regulations that are necessary or appropriate to carry out sections 2701, 2702, 2703, 2723, and 2794. Section 1321(a) of the Affordable Care Act authorizes rulemaking with respect to sections 1302(e), 1312(c), and 1560(c).
Proposed 45 CFR 147.102 would require issuers offering non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets starting in 2014, and the large group market if such coverage is available through an Affordable Insurance Exchange (Exchange) starting in 2017, to limit any variation in premiums with respect to a particular plan or coverage to age and tobacco use within limits, family size, and geography.
Proposed § 147.104 would require issuers offering non-grandfathered health insurance coverage to accept every individual or employer who applies for coverage in the individual or group market, as applicable, subject to certain exceptions (for example, limits on network capacity).
Proposed § 147.106 would require issuers to renew all coverage in the individual and group markets, subject to certain exceptions (for example, non-payment of premiums or fraud).
The proposed revisions in 45 CFR part 154 would make three changes to the existing rate review program. Proposed revisions in § 154.200 would require states seeking state-specific thresholds to submit proposals for such thresholds by August 1 of each year and require CMS to review the proposals by September 1 of each year. If approved, a state-specific threshold would be effective January 1 of the following year. Proposed revisions in § 154.215 and § 154.220 would require health insurance issuers to submit, in a standardized format to be specified by the Secretary, data relating to proposed rate increases that are filed in a state on or after April 1, 2013, or effective on or after January 1, 2014 in a state that does not require the rate increases to be filed. Proposed revisions in § 154.301 would add criteria and factors for a state to have an Effective Rate Review Program, including that the state receives from all issuers proposing rate increases data and documentation about the rate increases in the standardized form specified by the Secretary; reviews the information for proposed rate increases greater than or equal to the review threshold; and makes information publicly available through its Web site.
Proposed § 156.80 generally would require health insurance issuers to treat all of their non-grandfathered business in the individual market and small group market, respectively, as a single risk pool. A state would have the authority to choose to direct issuers to merge their non-grandfathered individual and small group pools into a combined pool.
Proposed § 156.155 generally would codify section 1302(e) of the Affordable Care Act regarding catastrophic plans.
The proposed revisions in 45 CFR part 150 would clarify that CMS uses the same enforcement processes with respect to the requirements of 45 CFR part 147, which implements provisions added by the Affordable Care Act, as it does with respect to the requirements of 45 CFR parts 146 and 148, which pre-date the Affordable Care Act. Additional revisions would conform certain sections in 45 CFR part 144 to the clarification concerning the scope of 45 CFR part 150.
The provisions of this proposed rule, combined with other provisions in the Affordable Care Act, will improve the individual health insurance market by making insurance affordable and accessible to millions of Americans who currently do not have affordable options available to them. The shortcomings of the individual market today have been widely documented.
These limitations of the individual market are made evident by how few people actually purchase coverage in the individual market. In 2011, approximately 48.6 million people were uninsured in the United States,
The provisions of this proposed rule, combined with other provisions in the Affordable Care Act, will improve the functioning of both the individual and the small group markets. The provision for guaranteed availability will ensure that individuals with health problems who were previously unable to obtain coverage in the individual market will have access to coverage. The provision requiring that age, tobacco use, family size, and geography are the only permissible rating factors, within limits, will ensure that people with greater than average health needs are not priced out of the market. The provision requiring a single risk pool in each market will ensure that rate increases for healthy and less healthy people will be equal over time. Elimination of rating based on gender will mean lower premium rates for women, and the 3:1 limit on the rates charged to older subscribers will result in lower premium rates for older subscribers without shifting significant risk to younger subscribers as would happen under pure community rating. While eliminating gender rating and the limitations on age ratios could affect premium rates for some in some markets, this will be largely mitigated for most people by the availability of premium tax credits, by increased efficiencies and greater competition in the individual market, by measures such as the transitional reinsurance program and temporary risk corridors program to stabilize premiums, and by expected improvements in the overall health status of the risk pool. The availability of premium tax credits through Exchanges starting in 2014 will result in lower net premium rates for most people currently purchasing coverage in the individual market, and will encourage younger and healthier enrollees to enter the market, improving the risk pool and leading to reductions in premium rates for current policyholders.
We solicit comments on additional strategies consistent with the Affordable Care Act that CMS or states might deploy to avoid or minimize disruption of rates in the current market and encourage timely enrollment in coverage in 2014. For example, these strategies could include instituting the same enrollment periods inside and outside of Exchanges (as proposed in this rule) or a phase-in or transition period for certain policies. Additionally, we are examining ways in which states could continue their high risk pools beyond 2014 as a means of easing the transition. Ensuring premiums are affordable is a priority for the Administration as well as states, consumers, and insurers, so we welcome suggestions for the final rule on ways to achieve this goal while implementing these essential consumer protections.
Issuers may incur some one-time fixed costs in order to comply with the provisions of the final rule, including administrative and marketing costs. Administrative costs are, however, expected to decrease as a result of the elimination of medical underwriting to determine premium amounts. Issuer revenues and expenditures are also expected to increase substantially as a result of the expected increase in the number of people purchasing individual market coverage, which is projected to exceed 50 percent of current enrollment.
In addition, states may incur costs if they choose to establish their own, new geographic rating areas and age rating curves. We are also requesting information on such costs.
The proposed amendments to the rate review program would help issuers to avoid significant duplication of effort for filings subject to review by using the same standardized template for both non-QHPs and QHPs. Additionally, the collection of rate information below the rate review threshold and use of a standardized data template would provide the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and state departments of insurance with the ability to conduct the review and approval of products sold inside and outside an Exchange and ensure market stability. Health insurance issuers would incur administrative costs to prepare and submit the data.
In accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, we believe that the benefits of this regulatory action would justify the costs.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, was enacted on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Public Law 111-152, was enacted on March 30, 2010. These laws are
The current individual and small group health insurance markets generally are viewed as dysfunctional, placing consumers at a disadvantage due to the high cost of health insurance coverage, resulting from factors such as lack of competition, adverse selection, and limited transparency. In the past ten years, average total premiums for group and individual health insurance coverage have increased substantially.
In 2007, 62 percent of personal bankruptcies were attributable to medical expenses. Many of these individuals and families either had health insurance that did not provide adequate coverage for their medical expenses or lost medical coverage due to illness.
In addition to affordability concerns, many people have difficulty finding and enrolling in coverage options. If employer-based coverage is not available, a person may find that affordable individual market coverage is not available due to medical underwriting. Research has shown that individuals could be denied coverage based even on common medical conditions such as asthma, depression, hypertension, and knee injuries.
Among other policies, the Affordable Care Act expands affordable coverage to uninsured Americans through the private health insurance market. When fully implemented, its reforms will make health insurance coverage more affordable and accessible for individuals and families, many of whom could not previously get or afford coverage. The insurance market reforms will help ensure that no individual or small employer is denied insurance coverage, and that, once issued, coverage cannot be non-renewed due to health factors. Premiums charged by health insurance issuers may only vary by certain factors. Further, each issuer will have a single risk pool for its business in the individual market and a single risk pool for its business in the small group market (unless a state decides to merge the markets). This risk pool provision will spread risk more evenly among consumers, which will help keep premiums more affordable.
Prior to the Affordable Care Act, title XXVII of the PHS Act included certain insurance market protections for individuals and employers that were added by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). HIPAA provided guaranteed renewability of coverage to individuals and employers, broad guaranteed availability rights to small employers, and narrower guaranteed availability rights in the individual market for certain individuals leaving group coverage. In practice, relatively few individuals exercise their HIPAA rights to individual market guaranteed availability due to the high costs of such coverage in many states and the requirement that they first exhaust any available continuation coverage, such as COBRA, which is often unaffordable.
Both before and after HIPAA, a number of states enacted limited, incremental reforms to improve access and increase affordability in their individual and group insurance markets. HIPAA explicitly recognized the role of the states as the primary insurance regulators where their standards were at least as protective as HIPAA. Although the level of activity varies by state, most states have adopted guaranteed availability and renewability reforms consistent with HIPAA, and several states have adopted rating standards. For example, one recent survey of state insurance market rules found that all states require guaranteed availability in the small employer market.
Despite the advances in some states, only five states (Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont) have adopted a comprehensive set of guaranteed availability and community rating reforms in both their individual and small group markets that meet or exceed those in the Affordable Care Act. Only Massachusetts, which enacted a landmark health reform law in 2006 that coupled insurance market reforms with an insurance exchange, premium subsidies, and a minimum coverage provision, has succeeded in covering nearly all residents of the state. In 2011, only 3.4 percent of Massachusetts residents were uninsured, compared to 15.7 percent nationally.
Subtitles A and C of title I of the Affordable Care Act reorganized, amended, and added provisions to part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act relating to health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets and group health plans that are non-federal governmental plans.
Section 2701 regarding fair premiums applies to the individual and small group markets generally, and to the large group market if a state permits large employers to purchase coverage through an Exchange.
The preemption provisions of PHS Act section 2724(a)(1) apply so that the requirements of the Affordable Care Act are not to be “construed to supersede any provision of state law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement solely relating to health insurance issuers in connection with individual or group health insurance coverage except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents the application of a requirement” of the Affordable Care Act. Section 1321(d) of the Affordable Care Act applies the same preemption principle to requirements of title I of the Affordable Care Act. As mentioned, state laws that impose stricter requirements on health insurance issuers than those imposed by the Affordable Care Act will not be superseded by the Affordable Care Act.
Section 1312(c) of the Affordable Care Act creates a single risk pool standard, applicable to both QHPs and non-QHPs, in the individual and small group markets; in addition, states may choose to have a merged individual and small group market pool. Although the Affordable Care Act does not provide an explicit effective date for section 1312(c), we interpret it to be effective for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning on or after January 1, 2014, given its dependence on and interaction with the new market reforms, as well as its explicit reference to the establishment of the Exchanges in 2014. Section 1312(c) does not apply to grandfathered health plans.
Lastly, section 1302 of the Affordable Care Act specifies levels of cost-sharing protections that health plans will offer, including in subsection (e) a catastrophic plan for young adults and people who cannot otherwise afford health insurance.
Section 1003 of the Affordable Care Act adds a new section 2794 of the PHS Act, which directs the Secretary, in conjunction with the states, to establish a process for the annual review of “unreasonable increases in premiums for health insurance coverage.” The statute provides that health insurance issuers must submit to the Secretary and the applicable state justifications for unreasonable premium increases prior to the implementation of the increases. Section 2794 also specifies that beginning with plan years beginning in 2014, the Secretary, in conjunction with the states, shall monitor premium increases of health insurance coverage offered through an Exchange and outside of an Exchange. Section 2794 of the PHS Act does not apply to grandfathered health insurance coverage, nor does it apply to self-funded plans.
On May 23, 2011, CMS published a final rule with comment period (76 FR 29964), to implement the annual review
We are proposing revisions to the rate review program that would standardize and streamline data submission, fulfill the new requirement beginning in 2014 that the Secretary monitor premium increases of health insurance coverage offered through an Exchange and outside of an Exchange, and establish new standards that incorporate the effect of the market reform provisions that take effect in 2014.
Collectively, the proposed regulations regarding modified community rating, guaranteed availability, guaranteed renewability, and risk pooling create the foundation for a competitive and accessible health insurance market starting in 2014. The Affordable Care Act allows individuals and employers to obtain and renew health insurance coverage without regard to enrollees' health status. Health insurance premiums will no longer be based on enrollees' pre-existing conditions or gender, and health insurance issuers no longer will be able to divide up their risk pools (also known as blocks of business) in order to discriminate against less healthy individuals. These proposed rules would clarify health insurance issuers' obligations under these reforms.
These proposed rules regarding insurance market reforms are inextricably linked to several other reforms in the Affordable Care Act that function to expand access to and affordability of coverage. For example, subtitle D of title I of the Affordable Care Act authorizes the establishment of Exchanges where individuals and small employers can enroll in QHPs and creates certain premium stabilization programs for the reformed marketplace. Further, Code section 36B provides for premium tax credits for eligible individuals who enroll in QHPs through Exchanges. Similarly, Code section 45R provides for small business tax credits for eligible employers who enroll in health insurance coverage through the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). Although these other reforms are not the subjects of this proposed rule, they do influence the options available for implementing this proposed rule.
As noted, the proposed rule would make technical changes to clarify the processes that CMS uses to enforce Affordable Care Act reforms with respect to issuers and non-federal governmental group health plans. The proposed rule also would codify the policies related to catastrophic plans.
PHS Act section 2701 provides that health insurance issuers may vary premium rates for health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets
For purposes of family coverage, any premium variation for age and tobacco use must be applied to the portion of premium attributable to each family member. PHS Act section 2701(a)(2)(A) specifies that states can establish one or more rating areas. PHS Act section 2702(a)(2)(B) provides that CMS may establish rating areas if a state does not establish them. CMS, in consultation with the NAIC, will define permissible age bands. All non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets is subject to the requirements in this section.
While PHS Act section 2701 limits how issuers may vary premiums, the statute does not specify detailed rating methodologies. By rating methodology, we refer to the array of choices made in setting prices—for example, the age curves an issuer would use to distribute rates within the 3:1 limit on adult rates as enrollees grow older. The rating methodology also could include the method for computing rates in the small group market and the methods for computing family premiums. In current practice, most aspects of rating
This proposed rule implements our authority under PHS Act section 2701 and would apply to all non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets starting in 2014. This rule proposes to standardize rating methodologies, particularly with respect to age rating and certain aspects of family rating, for health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets when the market reforms go into effect in 2014. This proposed rule allows flexibility for states and issuers in rating methodology when it comes to certain aspects of family, tobacco, age, geography, and small group rating.
More standardization with respect to rating methodologies is advantageous in many respects. First, the risk adjustment methodology under section 1343 of the Affordable Care Act will need to accommodate permissible rating factors under PHS Act section 2701.
Furthermore, some core functions of the Exchange, such as calculating rates for QHPs and determining the benchmark plan for purposes of the premium tax credit under Code section 36B, would be simplified if issuers used the same age curves, age bands, and family rating methods. The second lowest cost silver plan is the benchmark plan that will be used to determine the maximum amount an applicant can receive for premium tax credits. If issuers choose their own age curves, age bands, and family rating methods, the definition of the second lowest cost silver plan would likely vary by applicant. In contrast, standardizing rating methodologies will result in all applicants having the same plan from the same issuer as the second lowest cost silver plan, regardless of the applicant's age and family composition, in a given rating area. This will improve price transparency for consumers by facilitating their ability to identify the second lowest cost silver plan. Lastly, allowing differences in rating methodologies between issuers in the same market in a state could provide an avenue for adverse selection.
The following sections discuss the proposed rating methodology. We welcome comments on the areas where and the extent to which state and issuer flexibility in rating methodologies versus a more standardized approach is desirable.
Two rating methods are used currently in the marketplace to generate small group market rates. The first method, known as composite rating, uses the rating characteristics of an entire small group, such as the average employee health risk,
Given that PHS Act section 2701 does not distinguish between individual and small group market rating, we propose that issuers would calculate rates for employee and dependent coverage in the small group market on a per-member basis, in the same manner that they would calculate rates for persons in the individual market, as discussed below, and then calculate the group premium by totaling the premiums attributable to each covered individual. Per-member rating is required by PHS Act section 2701(a)(4), which specifies that the age and tobacco use factors be apportioned to each family member. However, as discussed below, this proposed rule does not preclude the possibility that employees and their dependents would be charged amounts based on their group's average, rather than amounts based on their own specific factors, notwithstanding that issuers must base the total premium for a group on its actual current enrollment. We propose that states which anticipate requiring premiums to be based on average enrollee amounts submit information to CMS not later than 30 days after the publication of the final rule to support the accuracy of the risk adjustment methodology.
In the group context, the allowable rating factors, including tobacco use, would be appropriately associated with specific employees and dependents. Additionally, with per-member rating, premium changes for new hires and departures during the year would be priced more accurately, an issue of particular importance in smaller groups. And in the SHOP, when employees are offered choices among plans and issuers, the additional cost or savings resulting from an employee's plan choice would also be priced more accurately, ensuring that each issuer receives appropriate premiums for the individuals choosing its health plans.
The use of per-member rating would give employers flexibility to choose how to allocate their contributions to employees' coverage. PHS Act section 2701 governs the basis upon which an issuer may permissibly charge different groups or individuals different rates for the same insurance product, but it does not specify how an employer will allocate the premium contributions among employees.
An employer may choose to set the employee contribution as a percentage of the underlying cost of the employee's coverage. Under this option, older employees and smokers would make higher contributions toward coverage, reflecting their higher risk and permissible rate variation based on age and tobacco use. Younger employees would make lower contributions, which may improve the perceived value of insurance for these employees and increase take-up rates, making it easier for the employer to meet any minimum participation rate requirement that may apply.
Alternatively, after the issuer develops rates using the per-member methodology, an employer may elect to generate a composite rate in which each employee's contribution for a given family composition is the same, as most employers offering coverage do today, by adding the per-member rates and dividing the total by the number of employees to arrive at the group's average rate and determine employer and employee contributions based on that composite rate. This flexibility for small employers would take into account that many employers, states, and issuers are already accustomed to composite rating, it is relatively simple, and this method may be beneficial to older employees. However, this composite method may differ from how composite rates often are developed today. This decision will be up to employers.
We seek comment on the alignment of the method for calculating each employee's rate in the small group market with that used to calculate an individual's rate in the individual market. In particular, we seek comment on the implications of this approach for employers and employees, whether it is more compatible with employee choice in the SHOP, and whether it leads to more accurate pricing of employee choices.
PHS Act section 2701(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that issuers may vary rates based on whether a plan covers an individual or a family. PHS Act section 2701(a)(4) provides that, with respect to family coverage, the rating variation permitted for age and tobacco use must be applied based on the portion of the premium attributable to each family member covered under a plan.
The rule proposes that issuers add up the rate of each family member to arrive at a family premium.
Consistent with PHS Act section 2701(a)(4), the proposed per-member approach to family rating ensures that any variation in premium by age or tobacco use is applied to the appropriate family member. Per-member rating also simplifies the administration of risk adjustment because the risk associated with each family member would be easily identified. We solicit comments on the use of the per-member build-up methodology for individual and small group market coverage. In addition, we request comments on the appropriate cap, if any, on the number of child and adult family members whose premiums should be taken into account in determining the family premium and the appropriate cut-off age for a per-child cap (for example, whether this should be aligned with the extension of dependent coverage to age 26 instead).
Currently, some issuers apply specified family tier or family composition multipliers to a base premium to arrive at a family rate. Other issuers may determine a family premium rate based upon the policyholder or oldest adult's age. These current practices are impermissible under PHS Act section 2701(a)(4) to the extent that the multipliers or the base premium vary based on age or tobacco use, since some family members would be rated using factors that do not apply to them individually. However, this conflict does not exist in a state that does not permit variation based on age or tobacco use.
Accordingly, the proposed rule would permit a state to require issuers to use a standard family tier methodology (with corresponding multipliers) if the state requires pure community rating, without any adjustments for age or tobacco use. The multipliers for the tiers would need to be actuarially justified to ensure that health insurance issuers could not charge excessively high premiums to individuals or families that would render meaningless their guaranteed availability rights under PHS Act section 2702. PHS Act section 2701 does not require that issuers use a two-tier structure (that is, individual and family). For example, a state would be able to specify a four-tier structure (that is, individual; individual and spouse; individual and child/children; and all other families). If a state anticipates adopting such a policy in the event this proposed approach is finalized, we propose such states submit relevant information on their proposed family tiers to CMS no later than 30 days after the publication of the final rule to support the accuracy of the risk adjustment methodology.
We propose that if a state has pure community rating in place, but does not adopt a uniform family tier methodology (with corresponding multipliers), the per-member rating methodology would apply as the default. In a state that does not require community rating, an issuer that voluntarily uses pure community rating would need to use per-member rating, given the absence of a uniform family tier methodology in that state. We solicit comment on whether, instead of permitting flexibility in the final rule, states with pure community rating should also use the per-member approach that would be used in states that allow age and tobacco use adjustments.
Currently, issuers have considerable flexibility in determining how to set rates for family policies and in defining which family members may be on the same policy, subject to federal and state laws requiring coverage of certain individuals (for example, dependent
We request comments on whether the final rule should specify the minimum categories of family members that health insurance issuers must include in setting rates for family policies, or whether we should defer to the states and health insurance issuers to make this determination. We also request comments on the types of individuals who typically are included under family coverage currently, including types of covered individuals who would not meet the classification of tax dependents. We note that any family member not covered under a family policy would be eligible for an individual policy pursuant to guaranteed availability of coverage under PHS Act section 2702.
PHS Act section 2701(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that rates may vary by rating areas. PHS Act section 2701(a)(2) provides that a state must establish one or more rating areas within that state. CMS is charged with reviewing the adequacy of the rating areas established by a state. If the state's rating areas are inadequate (for example, they do not cover a sufficient number of individuals) or a state does not act, CMS may establish such rating areas. Although section 2701 does not specify the maximum variation f