Suchergebnisse

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This testimony discusses state oversight of health insurance premium rates in 2010 and changes that states that received Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review grants have begun making to enhance their oversight of premium rates. In 2009, about 173 million nonelderly Americans, about 65 percent of the U.S. population under the age of 65, had private health insurance coverage, either through individually purchased or employer-based private health plans. The cost of this health insurance coverage continues to rise. In a 2010 survey, over three-quarters of U.S. consumers with individually purchased private health plans reported health insurance premium increases. Of those reporting increases, the average premium increase was 20 percent. A separate survey found that premiums for employerbased coverage more than doubled from 2000 to 2010. Policymakers have raised questions about the extent to which these increases in health insurance premiums are justified and could adversely affect consumers. Oversight of the private health insurance industry is primarily the responsibility of individual states. This includes oversight of health insurance premium rates, which are actuarial estimates of the cost of providing coverage over a period of time to policyholders and enrollees in a health plan. While oversight of private health insurance, including premium rates, is primarily a state responsibility, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) established a role for HHS by requiring the Secretary to work with states to establish a process for the annual review of unreasonable premium increases. In addition, PPACA required the Secretary to carry out a program to award grants to assist states in their review practices. Since the enactment of PPACA, members of Congress and others have continued to raise questions about rising health insurance premium rates and states' practices for overseeing them. This statement will highlight key findings from a report we are publicly releasing today that describes state oversight of health insurance premium rates in 2010 and changes that states that received HHS rate review grants have begun making to enhance their oversight of health insurance premium rates. For that report, we surveyed officials from the insurance departments of all 50 states and the District of Columbia (collectively referred to as "states")."

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Over the past several years, large increases in medical malpractice insurance premium rates have raised concerns that physicians will no longer be able to afford malpractice insurance and will be forced to curtail or discontinue providing certain services. Additionally, a lack of profitability has led some large insurers to stop selling medical malpractice insurance, furthering concerns that physicians will not be able to obtain coverage. To help Congress better understand the reasons behind the rate increases, GAO undertook a study to (1) describe the extent of the increases in medical malpractice insurance rates, (2) analyze the factors that contributed to those increases, and (3) identify changes in the medical malpractice insurance market that might make this period of rising premium rates different from previous such periods."

Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "This testimony focuses on the factors that have contributed to the recent increases in insurance premium rates and the differences in rates among states that have passed varying levels of tort reform laws. Our findings are based on two reports we recently issued addressing various aspects of the recent increases in medical malpractice insurance rates. Recognizing that the medical malpractice market varies considerably across states, as part of these reviews we judgmentally selected a number of states and conducted more in-depth reviews in each of those states. Both our analyses and our conclusions are based in part on data and information we received from the states we visited and in part on analyses of national data from various sources."

Description based on: Rev. Dec. 1992; title from cover. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Chiefly tables. ; Rescinds VA pamphlet 90-12, dated Jan. 1959. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Form 740. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; With this is bound Information regarding United States government life insurance. United States Veterans' bureau. [1926]

"In der gesundheitspolitischen Reformdebatte wird zunehmend die Umstellung der Finanzierung der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung von einkommensabhängigen Beiträgen auf einkommensunabhängige Kopfprämien gefordert. Zur Umsetzung dieser Forderung wurde ein Reihe von Modellen entwickelt, die in unterschiedlichem Ausmaß Umverteilungselemente aus der GKV entfernen und durch einen steuerfinanzierten Transfermechanismus bzw. versicherungstechnische Kalkulationselemente ersetzen wollen. Die Protagonisten dieser Modelle versprechen sich durch die Umstellung der GKV-Finanzierung auf Kopfprämien eine Reihe von Vorteilen. Zu diesen Vorteilen zählen vor allem die Abkopplung der Krankenkassenbeiträge vom Arbeitslohn, eine erhöhte Zielgenauigkeit der Umverteilung, die Möglichkeit der Integration von Zu- und Abwahlleistungen in das GKV-System und die Lösung der Allokationsprobleme im Gesundheitssystem durch eine Stärkung wettbewerblicher Steuerungselemente. Die Bewertung der Modelle kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die meisten der von den Befürwortern genannten Argumente einer näheren Überprüfung nicht stand halten. Umgekehrt werden eine Reihe von mit diesen Modellen verbundenen Risiken von deren Befürwortern unterschätzt. Vor allem aber lenkt die Diskussion über die Finanzierung durch Kopfprämien von den Problemen und Herausforderungen im Gesundheitswesen ab, die auf der Leistungs- und nicht auf der Finanzierungsseite liegen. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist eine Konzentration der öffentlichen Aufmerksamkeit auf eine wettbewerbliche Weiterentwicklung der GKV mit dem Ziel der Erhöhung von Qualität, Effektivität und Effizienz der Versorgung anstelle einer Debatte über Kopfprämien zu fordern." (Autorenreferat)