Ohio’s Obamacare Co-op Shutting its Doors

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Tuesday, May 31st, 2016, 3:59 PM PERMALINK

With the end of Obama’s presidency approaching, the end of the ill-fated Obamacare co-op experiment appears to be fast approaching too. Last week, The Ohio Department of Insurance announced that InHealth Mutual, the Obamacare co-op operating in the state would shut down and enter into receivership. This news makes InHealth Mutual the 13th Obamacare co-op to fail, a reckless experiment that has resulted in well over a billion in taxpayer dollars wasted.

Co-ops are not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. In theory, they would provide member-driven care and would not need to worry about recording a profit. In practice, they have failed to become sustainable.

The Obama administration originally provided $129 million in loans and funding to help the Ohio co-op set up. Despite this infusion of cash, the co-op struggled to operate, posting a loss of $80 million last year at a time the co-op was under strict federal oversight.  The failure of Ohio’s Obamacare co-op leaves 22,000 Ohioans looking for insurance.

Ohio’s InHealth, is only one of the failed co-ops, and the losses on this program only represent a slight amount of the actual losses from the co-op program, which amount to billions. Of the 23 co-ops that were created with federal loans, more than half have failed including those in Tennessee, Nevada, New York, and Louisiana.  All but two of the 23 co-ops experienced losses while operating in an Obamacare exchange, so it is almost certain that more will collapse.

This failure of Obamacare co-ops should not be surprising. As a report by the Daily Caller’s Richard Pollock found, they were plagued with poor management and high salary payouts. 17 of the 21 co-ops paid out gratuitous salaries to executives reaching as high as $587,000, which is more than four times as much as the $135,000 median health insurance executive salary. Worse still, many of these executives had little to no experience in the insurance industry and some of these excessive salaries were disguised in financial documents as “management fees”.

Federal management over co-op funds was little better, as CMS allowed some co-ops to classify loans as assets on their financial documents rather than debt. This reclassification allowed co-ops to appear successful when they were in fact on the brink of failure.

Co-ops were also hit by lower than expected Obamacare enrollment and the poor performance of exchange marketplaces. Many co-ops were hoping to receive significant funding from the risk corridor program, which was designed to encourage insurers to take on high-risk individuals. In theory, the revenue neutral program would transfer funds from insurers who made money on an Obamacare exchange to those that experienced losses, but so many insurers faced losses that CMS was only able to issue 12.6% of the payments that were requested.

The government has wasted billions on these Obamacare co-ops. The failure of more than half of these co-ops points to the overall failure of the Obamacare law. While 10 co-ops still remain, the viability of these remaining co-ops is very minimal and they are likely to nose-dive, like the other 13 botched co-ops.

A list of all failed Obamacare co-ops and taxpayer funds spent is below:

CoOportunity Health - Iowa and Nebraska
Cost: $145,312,100

Louisiana Health Cooperative, Inc.
Cost: $65,790,660

Nevada Health Cooperative 
Cost: $65,925,396

Health Republic Insurance of New York
Cost: $265,133,000

Kentucky Health Care Cooperative - Kentucky and West Virginia
Cost: $146,494,772

Community Health Alliance Mutual Insurance Company - Tennessee
Cost: $73,306,700

Colorado HealthOp
Cost: $72,335,129

Health Republic Insurance of Oregon
Cost: $60,648,505

Consumers' Choice Health Insurance Company - South Carolina
Cost: $87,578,208

Arches Mutual Insurance Company – Utah
Cost: $89,650,303

Meritus Health Partners – Arizona
Cost: $93,313,233

Consumers Mutual Insurance – Michigan
Cost: $71,534,300

Photo Credit: 
J. Stephen Conn

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Organ Donor Shortage Must Be Addressed

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Friday, May 27th, 2016, 9:20 AM PERMALINK

Our nation faces an alarming organ shortage. Every day, twenty-two people die because they cannot get a transplant and the donor wait list is more than 121,000 people long.

Depending on the organ, wait lists can be up to ten years long, past the point a patient can survive.  Not only does this lead to a loss of life, but this also drains Medicare and other social service funds, which ultimately places a burden on taxpayers.

Each transplant can save an average of $745,000 in medical costs, of which 75 percent of the savings is to taxpayers.  Additionally, a patient who has received a kidney transplant has an added 10-15 years when compared to those who remain on dialysis. If the supply of transplant kidneys increased, taxpayers could save more than $5.5 billion per year in medical costs.

The Organ Donor Clarification Act, introduced by Congressman Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), addresses our nation’s pressing organ shortage, and eradicates the taxpayer burden.

First, the act allows for the creation of pilot programs in order to test the promotion of organ donation through non-cash incentives. It should be noted that this legislation has no budgetary impact, it solely authorizes the creation of programs, which must be approved through the normal process.

Second, this legislation clarifies that certain reimbursements, such as travel or medical care expenses do not constitute “valuable consideration.” Under current law, organ donors are prohibited from receiving any valuable consideration in exchange for their donation. This is meant to prevent individuals from selling their organs but also serves as a disincentive for otherwise prospective donors because they are prohibited from being reimbursed for common expenses.

It is imperative that we address the nation’s organ donation shortage, and the Organ Donor Clarification Act does so. It will save both lives and taxpayer dollars. ATR supports this bill and encourages all Members of Congress to co-sponsor and support the Organ Donor Clarification Act. 

Photo Credit: 
Karol Franks

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Top Comments

Rep. Frank Guinta Makes Written Commitment to Oppose Higher Taxes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alec DiFruscia on Thursday, May 26th, 2016, 3:59 PM PERMALINK

Rep. Frank Guinta, Congressman for New Hampshire’s First Congressional District, has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to the American people. The Pledge is a written commitment to the constituents of the First Congressional District and the American public to oppose higher taxes. Rep. Guinta is running for reelection in November.

Prior to being elected to Congress, Guinta served as the mayor of Manchester, New Hampshire, the largest city in the state. During his tenure, Manchester saw the first tax cut in the city in more than a decade.

“The American people are tired of the tax-and-spend policies coming from Washington and they are looking for solutions that create jobs, cut government spending, and get the economy going again. Signing the Pledge is the first step in that process.”

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been offered to every candidate for federal office since 1986. In the 114th Congress, 219 Congressmen and 48 Senators have signed the Pledge.

“We are ecstatic about Guinta’s commitment to the taxpayers of New Hampshire. I challenge all candidates for New Hampshire’s First Congressional district to make the same commitment to taxpayers by signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge today,” continued Norquist.

We are glad Guinta has made this commitment to the taxpayers of New Hampshire.

Photo Credit: 
Jason Meserve

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Michael Callis

My name is Michael 'Stonewal' Callis and I am running against Frank 'lying' Guinta. The only pledge I can honestly sign is one to lower taxes. The Norquist pledge is a capitulation by someone with ties to Muslim terrorists. Your current pledge is an acceptance of the status of high taxes and is a surrender.
I offer a new pledge to lower taxes and am prepared to back it up if elected.
I hope you can support and respect my pledge to lower taxes. I am a tax fighter. I will fight taxes for you. Unlike the tainted Frank Guinta I pledge to protect bonds and secure the best rates. Michael Callis

ATR Congratulates Ohio for Passing Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Krista Chavez on Thursday, May 26th, 2016, 3:58 PM PERMALINK

Yesterday, Ohio’s House of Representatives passed H.B. 347 to reform the state’s broken asset forfeiture process. The bill passed 67-24, displaying its overwhelming support from the majority of its citizens.

Ohio’s current civil asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize property from individuals without a criminal charge. By increasing protections for Ohio property owners and implementing due process within the system of forfeited property, the Ohio legislature is moving in the correct direction to improve the rights of its citizens.

The Institute for Justice’s Policing for Profit Report gives Ohio forfeiture laws a D- because “it has a low bar to forfeit, no conviction required, poor protections for innocent third party property owners, and as much as 100% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement.” In total, law enforcement forfeiture proceeds averaged at $8,575,933 per year from 2010-12.

According to a poll from the U.S. Justice Action Network that surveyed 500 registered voters in September 2015, 81% of Ohio residents believe asset forfeiture is in need of reform.

H.R. 347 displays that representatives are finally listening to their constituents, and Americans for Tax reform is proud to support it. 

Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Massachusetts' Legislature Gives Preliminary Approval to Millionaire's Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Thursday, May 26th, 2016, 3:31 PM PERMALINK

Last week, the majority of Massachusetts state legislators voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to enact a “millionaire’s tax.” The organization, Raise Up, collected the necessary signatures needed in order to bring the millionaire’s tax measure to the legislature. This proposal would apply a 4.0 percent surtax on income above $1 million, which would be levied on top of the Bay State’s 5.1 percent flat income tax. The good news is, despite legislative action last week, enactment of such a tax hike is far from imminent. The Boston Globe’s Evan Horowitz explains:

“For one thing, backers need something more than a new law; they need a constitutional amendment — because at present the state constitution doesn’t allow for differential tax rates.”

An 80 percent tax surge would hit small businesses especially hard, as the majority of small businesses file under the individual income tax system. The IRS accounts that more than 3,000 small businesses in Massachusetts report incomes over $1 million. The proposed millionaire’s tax would severely burden small business and stymie future economic growth for the Bay State.

The Globe’s Horowitz, explains how this matter would not be resolved until 2018 at the earliest:

“Amending the state constitution is a multi-step process. First, a quarter of legislators have to approve the amendment, which is what’s happening Wednesday. Then, in the 2017-2018 legislative session, they have to approve it again. Only then can it go to voters in the form of a ballot initiative.

This lengthy process has a potentially worrisome correlate. If it turns out there’s an error or problem with the amendment — or merely some ambiguity requiring clarification — addressing it could require another four-year process of constitutional re-amendment.”

Support of only 50 of the 200 state legislators were needed to advance the constitutional amendment. There was more than enough votes to move forward with the amendment, with votes totaling 102 to 50 in the House and 33 to 7 in the Senate.

Massachusetts voters have smartly rejected calls for a progressive income tax five times over the last five and a half decades. Increased reliance on upper income households makes state revenues more volatile, as California, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have first-hand experienced. The millionaire’s tax proposed in Massachusetts will make state revenue collections less stable, budgeting more difficult, and will make the commonwealth less competitive with other states around the country, many of which –such as Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee—have been reducing and phasing out income taxes. 

Photo Credit: 
Jason Mrachina

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Health Savings Accounts Should Be Expanded and Protected

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, May 26th, 2016, 1:37 PM PERMALINK

Health savings accounts, or HSAs are tax-advantaged accounts which are used to pay for routine, out-of-pocket medical expenses.  They are used in conjunction with insurance plans which tend to cover large and/or unexpected health events and allow individuals to make choices that best fit their needs. Expanding and protecting HSAs is one component to ensuring Americans have access to patient centered health care that best fits their needs and keeps costs low.

The importance of HSAs is why Congress should pass H.R. 5324 and S. 2980, the Health Savings Account Expansion Act of 2016, legislation introduced this week by Congressman Dave Brat (R-Va.) and Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). This legislation contains a number of important reforms that will make HSAs even better.

First, the legislation more than doubles HSA contribution limits. Current HSA contribution limits are $3,350 for a single filer and $6,750 for a joint filer, and this legislation increases that to $9,000 for single filer and $18,000 for joint filers per year.

Second, the HSA expansion act lifts Obamacare restrictions on over the counter purchases and penalties placed on certain withdrawals.

Third, the bill allows HSA funds to be used to pay premiums and direct primary care expenses.

Lastly, superfluous regulatory requirements would be streamlined with the high deductible health plan mandate eliminated.

In addition to these important reforms, the HSA Expansion act protects existing tax provisions that enable people to pay for and access their healthcare in the way that they prefer, prevents the removal of HSA-eligible plans from Obamacare exchanges, streamlines health care financing, and expands choices for personalized medicine including direct primary care.

Clearly, this legislation makes many important, commonsense improvements to HSAs that increase healthcare freedom for families. As such, ATR supports this important legislation and encourages all Members of the House and Senate to co-sponsor and support the Health Savings Account Expansion Act.

Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

ATR Endorses the DUE PROCESS Act to Reform Legalized Property Theft

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Krista Chavez on Wednesday, May 25th, 2016, 5:30 PM PERMALINK

Last week, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) introduced H.R. 5283, the Deterring Undue Enforcement by Protecting Rights of Citizens from Excessive Searches and Seizures (DUE PROCESS) Act, to alter the corrupt federal civil asset forfeitures disrupting American citizens. Americans for Tax Reform is proud to endorse this legislation that restores the rights of innocent citizens from the broken civil asset forfeiture system.

Today, the bill passed the House Judiciary Committee. In the Committee hearing, Sensenbrenner thanked ATR’s support for the bill, stating that “I would like to note the statements in favor of this legislation from…Americans for Tax Reform,” among others.

Civil asset forfeiture is the process by which the government can seize peoples’ property without convictions or warrants. It obstructs inherent rights granted to American citizens in the Declaration of Independence. 

H.R. 5283 increases transparency in civil asset forfeiture proceedings by adding protections for innocent property owners and ensuring that property owners can contest wrongful seizures. It requires the government to give property back to owners while making it easier for them to be heard in court. By facilitating an initial hearing for affected property owners, the DUE PROCESS Act gives folks an opportunity to physically retrieve their confiscated property early in the process if it was not lawfully seized. It also places a higher burden of proof on the federal government, bringing the process closer to criminal asset forfeiture.

Along with Sensenbrenner, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.), Crime Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Representative Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and Representative Peter Roskam (R-Ill.)  supported for the bill.

About the bill, Sensenbrenner stated,

“Forfeiture is a critical tool in the fight against crime, but it is also vulnerable to abuse. The DUE PROCESS Act, among other things, will increase transparency and add protections for innocent property owners, including the opportunity to contest seizures and regain illegally seized property immediately. Reform to the current federal forfeiture laws is necessary to curb abuse, restore confidence in law enforcement, and help citizens protect their property rights.”

Federal asset forfeiture must be changed, and the DUE PROCESS Act is a step in the right direction.

ATR President Grover Norquist highlighted,

From 2004 to 2014, the amount of money taken by federal law enforcement increased from under $1 billion to over $5 billion. This represents a significant amount of unaccountable money with little oversight from elected officials to be freely spent by the agencies that confiscated the assets.

For these reasons, states across the nation, including New Mexico, North Carolina, Maryland, and Florida, reformed forfeiture procedure to change it into a criminal-focused regime. The DUE PROCESS Act brings federal rules closer to acceptable standards of protection by increasing evidentiary standards in asset forfeiture proceedings, granting access to counsel for Americans during the proceedings, and improving oversight of forfeited assets and funds.

Unfortunately, this legislation does not touch on one of the most contentious aspects of the federal asset forfeiture program: equitable sharing.

Local law enforcement uses equitable sharing to partner with federal agents to pursue civil asset forfeiture cases using federal rules rather than state rules. Local agencies then receive a high percentage—as high as 80 percent—of seized assets while the Department of Justice keeps some cash for itself.

As stated previously, many states already took steps to give their residents additional legal protections. With equitable sharing, local law enforcement can maintain their profit incentives and use the less stringent standards opposed to their state legislatures. Congress must address equitable sharing profit incentives to ensure that higher state protections are respected.

It is important to note that the vast majority of the men and women who serve as law enforcement officials put their lives on the line to protect their communities. Friction created by civil asset forfeiture between those communities and the people that protect them damages this trusting relationship.”

The full letter can be read here.

Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Cover Oregon Obamacare Exchange Sacrificed for Governor’s Reelection Campaign

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Wednesday, May 25th, 2016, 5:00 PM PERMALINK

Former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and his advisors unlawfully took control of the now defunct $305 million Cover Oregon Obamacare exchange for political gain, according to a report released by the House Oversight Committee under the leadership of Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

Political staffers took over the exchange despite state law explicitly establishing Cover Oregon as an independent entity. This latest report proves previous accusations that the taxpayer funded exchange was abolished purely for political purposes to benefit the Governor’s reelection campaign.

Following a botched launch in late 2013, the Cover Oregon exchange became an embarrassment for the Governor and the state. Weeks after this first deadline, the exchange had enrolled zero applicants, forcing officials to install dozens of extra fax lines so that applicants could fax in a 20 page document.

From late 2013 to April 2014, when the state decided to abolish the near working $305 million exchange and move to the federal system, the Governor’s political advisors tightly controlled decision making based on political considerations. As the report notes:

 “Documents and testimony show the Cover Oregon Board of Directors’ decision to switch from the state-supported information technology platform to the federally-facilitated exchange, HealthCare.gov, was driven largely by political considerations and steered by Governor Kitzhaber’s staff and campaign advisers.”

State legislators clearly intended for the Cover Oregon Obamacare exchange to be an independent organization, as the report notes. But even though Governor Kitzhaber did not have authority to make decisions over the exchange, he did so anyway. In one case, staff from the Governor’s office was paid from campaign funds to manage issues related solely to Cover Oregon.

Campaign aides were so desperate to avoid negative publicity they even worked behind the scenes to undermine an attempt to salvage the Cover Oregon system.  As the report notes:

Rather than publicly advocate for a move to HealthCare.gov, the Governor’s staff and campaign operatives privately thwarted the work of the Technology Options Workgroup and manipulated the process to coerce a decision to switch to HealthCare.gov.

These decisions were clearly made based on careful calculation. Campaign staffers even viewed the exchange as a campaign issue. Documentation shows a concerted effort by the Governor's staff to divert attention away from Kitzhaber and assign blame to Oracle, the primary vendor for the project. 

Despite this project being financed by federal taxpayers, recovery of funds has been non-existent. A recent report by the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee found that just over $20 million of the more than $5.4 billion spent on 17 state exchanges has been returned. In addition, this $20 million represents funds that have been “de-obligated,” meaning they were leftover funds not spent before the grant expired.

Given these latest troubling findings, it is clear that stronger oversight and recovery of taxpayer funds is needed. 

Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

ATR Urges Lawmakers to Support Sen. Blunt’s Resolution Opposing a Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Wednesday, May 25th, 2016, 3:46 PM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform encourages all members of the Senate to support Sen. Blunt’s carbon tax resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that a Carbon tax will be detrimental to American families and businesses.

In a recent letter of support for Sen. Blunt’s Resolution, ATR President Grover Norquist explained how harmful a carbon tax would be:

“A carbon tax would kill jobs in the United States, reduce economic growth, and set the stage for future tax hikes. Such a tax would drive up energy prices for American families and businesses, leading to an increase in the costs of consumer goods and reduced household income.”

ATR strongly encourages members of the Senate to stand firm in their opposition to a carbon tax and to support Sen. Blunt’s resolution.


Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Norquist Submits Testimony on Need for Tax Reform

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Wednesday, May 25th, 2016, 2:00 PM PERMALINK

ATR President Grover Norquist today submitted testimony to the House Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee for a hearing examining perspectives on the need for tax reform.

The tax code has not be significantly altered since 1986, and there is a clear need to kick start this process. Spanning 74,608 pages, it is so complex and confusing that it is virtually impossible for taxpayers to know whether they are properly filing their taxes.

The byzantine, overly complex code has a crushing effect on both low and middle-income families but also on American competitiveness in the global economy. For decades, America has been the world leader in innovative ideas and products, and other countries are aggressively implementing pro-growth tax policies to attract American capital and jobs.

One way to get the ball rolling on tax reform, as Norquist points out, is to pass H.R. 27, the Tax Code Termination Act sponsored by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) This legislation sunsets the entire tax code by January 1, 2020, and calls on Congress to replace it with a fairer, simpler tax system.

Once the code is on the pathway to sunset, lawmakers create a tax code that works for all Americans, that has minimal burden on taxpayers, eliminates the bias against savings and investment, and promotes job creation and growth.

The full testimony can be found here. 

Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments