States Seek Transparency on Shared Health Care Ministries

0
(Photo: Shutterstock)

In the most recent blow to shared health care ministries, Colorado lawmakers last month passed a bill that would require HCSMs to file annual reports with the state detailing financial information about their plans. . The bill would require transparency regarding, among other things, how much HCSMs collect through bonuses and how much they pay for claims, according to Colorado Politics. The legislation was sent to the governor’s office in early June, where it now awaits his signature.

Healthcare Shared Ministries, or HCSMs, are a form of non-traditional healthcare coverage in which members pay monthly dues, which are then used to cover healthcare costs for themselves and other members. Unlike health insurers, HCSMs are not regulated by the Affordable Care Act and HCSMs have the power to reject claims for a number of reasons, including religious or moral principles or due to pre-existing conditions. Touted as a cheaper alternative to ACA-compliant health insurance plans, health insurance ministries have seen a resurgence in popularity since the COVID-19 pandemic left many people unemployed and without benefits.

The exact number of people involved in Colorado’s HCSMs is unknown: “We don’t know how many people are in these plans, we don’t know how many operators there are in the state,” said Sen. Christ Hansen , D-Denver, a sponsor of the bill, according to Colorado Politics. “That is precisely what we are trying to solve.” The bill gives Colorado insurance regulators the ability to fine HCSMs for failing to comply with the new regulations, or even order them to close.

Other states have also cracked down on health insurance departments in recent years. In Georgia, a class action lawsuit against an HCSM, Aliera, led to a federal judge ruling that it was in fact an insurance plan – and therefore subject to the rules of the ACA and others insurance regulations. The judge pointed out that there is no requirement of shared faith among Aliera members and that there are mandatory monthly payments for the plan, both of which indicate that the plan should not be considered a HCSM. The trial is now moving forward, with the potential to impact approximately 100,000 Aliera participants.

Similarly, in Washington, regulators have accused high-level HCSMs Trinity and Aliera of lacking transparency about their plans. According to complaints filed with state regulators, many plan users were unaware that there was a shared Christian faith requirement for their plans, and some even believed they were using traditional insurance, which would guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions. But Aliera denied that any of their operations in Washington violated regulations and argued that their services were an affordable alternative to traditional health insurance for many members.

Share.

Comments are closed.