Alaska is already facing its first decision following Thursday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act that was challenged by Alaska and other states.
Health officials are now reviewing a consultant’s report to decide how — and whether — Alaska should develop a Health Insurance Exchange, as required by the federal act.
Alaska gained notoriety last year, and praise from the opponents of “Obamacare” when it rejected federal planning funds for the creation of an exchange intended as an electronic marketplace for purchasing the new insurance that will be available as part of the act.
“We did turn down the money, we were the first state — the only state — to not take the first planning money,” said Bill Streur, Commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services.
“Several states have since joined us by returning the money,” he said.
A consultant working for the state has developed a report for the department on which it will likely base its decision on whether or not to proceed.
Streur said that while an insurance exchange must be developed, it doesn’t say that Alaska itself must do it.
“We have to decide whether we get involved with our own exchange, whether we get in a multi-state partnership or whether we let the feds do it,” he said.
Streur said he and his staff are spending the weekend reviewing the draft report, trying to get a recommendation to Parnell as soon as possible.
“We’re going to look at the recommendations (in the consultant’s plan), come up with our own to the governor, then we’ll proceed from there based on his advice to us,” Streur said.
Deciding how to proceed may also let Alaska move forward with one of the goals outlined by Parnell after Thursday’s ruling, making the federal government pay for costs associated with complying with the Affordable Care Act.
“I will work to shift back to the federal government those costs they are shifting to us,” he said.
Alaska has rejected several planning grants so far, including $1 million for the health information exchange planning, saying it feared it would come with burdensome strings attached.
Streur said one of the immediate decisions facing the administration, if it decides to go forward with the exchange, will be whether to go “hat in hand” to the federal government and accept the money it is offering.
Streur said Alaska has so far spent well under $500,000 of its own money, holding down costs by getting advice from other states, with Utah being particularly helpful.
“We’ve avoided a lot of expensive consulting expertise by looking to other states,” he said.
Streur said he hopes to have a decision by mid July, in time to meet the federal deadline of showing them a plan by Jan. 1 of 2013.
That deadline, however, may be pushed back, he said.
“There’s significant rumors that the feds are not going to be ready by January 1,” he said.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com
Comments (27)
Add commentI would just hold off on any
I would just hold off on any decisions until after Romney gets elected. The largest tax hike in history on the middle class will not sit well with most Americans.
@curtis
The tax will only apply to those that can afford health care insurance but refuse to get it. You like other have NIOT read the AFC and are making judgments based on Republican spin not the true facts!
The law is now President
The law is now President Obama's to own--along with the lies he used to justify it. "This is absolutely not a tax increase," he argued in 2009. Of course, the irony is that Congress would have never passed the bill if it had been presented as one. Then, there was the President's insistence that "No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." Today, several pro-life and religious freedom injustices now stand with the Court's blessing, including the abortion subsidies and funding scheme, the contraception-abortion drug mandate, and rationing board.
Obama obviously talks out both sides of his mouth. Let's dump this guy come November.
Romney's Affordable Care Act
I stand with Romney before he changed his mind about the Affordable Care Act, "mandate" and all. He endorsed it all through 2009. So he was for it--and in fact oversaw the invention and implementation of it--when a Governor. Now it's politically expedient for him to be against it. The Governor of Alaska should be glad to implement making health care more affordable for Alaskans and for promoting wellness. This foot dragging doesn't make sense. As for a tax, there is none except for those who can afford health coverage and choose to freeload off the rest of us when they get sick. There are those who say, "Let 'em die." Well, that's against the law, and inhumane, so they will be saved, and others will pay for their free ride. ... That's how it used to be, but that's over now. No more free-loading. All people need to be individually responsible for their health care. And now they can be at affordable costs, unless desperately poor. What's wrong with being individually responsible? Romney was for it (before he was against it). Alaska's Governor should be for it, too. It is, after all, a good Republican idea.
The 4th is Independance day?
Thanks obama, not a tax?? And the check is "in the mail" and "no, I won't" Right
HEALTH CARE
Don't ALL of you that want a repeal realize that one of the reason why hospital and other health care cost are so high is the fact that people without health care continue to use the ER for everything and the don't pay for the services?
Fed law
Let the fed run it. Don't waste anymore state employee time on it.
rough cut - the "other half"
rough cut - the "other half" are already paying for the free-loaders who use the ER. We pay for it in higher insurance premiums and higher hospital cost! It's time the free-loaders that can afford insurance but choose to "sponge" off the rest of us be required to contribute. The AFC may not be perfect, but it's a step in the correct direction! I find it just amazing that the GOP who for years has ranted about the virtues of "personal responsibility" are so upset now that we have a law requiring such. What gives?
Mando
What you seem to have overlooked or not heard is the fact that the minority leader of the US Senate months ago said that the primary goal of the Republican party is the replacement of President Obama in the White House by a Republican. All efforts have to be towards that one goal. Everything else is secondary.
It is not a matter of right or wrong, good or bad, it is all about election or re-election and doing what contributors to election campaigns want. It is not about what Republicans promoted and supported in the past like "Romneycare" but who gets elected to represent those who contribute to their election campaigns. In the past voters tried to elect people to represent the voters. Now we have people wanting the "good life" of being elected and willing to vote for the benefit of those who paid for their election.
It is not just Republicans, but Democrats as well....all seeking the good life of salary and benefits for life for themselves. "Public Servants"?? No, that ideal was lost years ago.
An "off the wall" idea for Mando, Billb, Art Petersen and others
If people want to be elected to represent us as "public servants" as elected representatives in our State or Federal government, perhaps we could ask them to do like Peace Corps Volunteers, or Volunteers in Service to America.
They would volunteer to serve at a minimum salary or income for two, six or eight years as "Public Servants" get health care while in service, and a bonus at the end of their term as a volunteer if they completed their service.
Then they could return to their previous way of life and occupation and be replaced by new Public Servants.
Now back to the reality of millions of dollars spent in advertising to try and persuade voters to elect those who will serve to benefit those who paid for their election campaign.
If The Boy Wonder doesn't set up the exchange
The Dems need to start running ads saying "Sean Parnell is putting the lives of Alaskans in danger in the name of party politics. Call him and tell him to stop"
It's the truth, and if Parnell keeps fighting healthcare reform he'll show himself as the moral bankrupt that he is.
This is a state that's been built by people working together...NOT by people saying "I got mine...know yourself in the Biblical sense".
The Parnell Policy: Let the Feds Do It!
Whether it's coastal zone management or now health care, the Parnell/Treadwell is simply: Let the Fed's do it with no state input.
The health exchanges are one part of health care reform that - in addition to covering pre-existing conditions, letting children stay on parent policies until age 26- most experts with no allegiance to a political party say is a positive.
In particular, the exchanges actually allow currently nonexisting choices to consumers, spurring competition among insurance companies- which if you believe in the free market, will lower costs or at least stem the huge increases of a broken system.
Just like he is beholden to the oil companies, the Parnell/Treadwell regime is apparently putting the insurance companies and the Republican Party above what is good for Alaskans.
And why not- they all have health insurance paid by the state of Alaska. They got theirs, and thumb their noses at those who don't by reading Party talking points. Parnell won't even discuss his ideas for a plan to cover Alaskans- he says that discussion "is for another day." Meaning never.
Maybe the Parnell/Treadwell regime can use the Romneycare model and institute a state mandate. Then they can take the credit for stopping the subsidies for uninsured people that many Alaskans pay everytime they receive medical care.
Yeah it was definitely better to allow insurance
Providers to throw people off for getting sick, and let young people have no insurance, and allow health insurance companies to make obscene profits and pay CEOs millions. You would think that the only news channel we get here is fox. This only penalizes free loaders that do not get insurance (and drive up the policy costs for the rest of us), and it helps families and small business afford health care. Idiots.
But who is going to pay???!!!!
Since everyone will have insurance and prices are controlled because the for-profit companies can only keep 20% of the premiums, costs for everyone drop and we all win. Oh, and state and local governments are projected to save billions in employee health care costs. Bet fox left that out too.
Enjoy cashing your premium rebate checks in a couple weeks.
Vote for Obama.
$3,000 tax when you sell your home to go toward the uninsured
Have you heard about that little tidbit in the affordable care act...and it takes effect soon....What a great law....Anyone want to take any bets on how long it will be before the Alaska dems start talking State Income Tax again?
Why do the liberals want more
Why do the liberals want more and more government? Are they really that scared to be responsible for themselves?
More lies, we don't want more government, we want reasonable
Health care costs, and to be treated fairly. BTW, there is no tax when you sell your house, just like there is no 16,000 IRS agents or death panels. PLEASE BECOME INFORMED BY A RELIABLE RESOURCE. Try http://healthcare.gov
How much did we raise taxes
How much did we raise taxes for the war in Afghanistan? The war in Iraq? Medicare Part D? No Child Left Behind? TARP? The Department of Homeland Security? Bush and the republicans lowered taxes in the short term, and rang up charges that will have to be paid for over years, maybe decades. You can call Dems the party of Tax, but we know who really is the party of Spend...
eowyn, Conservatives (who are
eowyn,
Conservatives (who are people with good hearts and minds just like you) want the same things...but the difference is we don’t believe we need the government OVERLY involved to achieve it.
Angelcrusher...agreed...why then would you want to give the government more money (i.e power) of which to poorly manage...
Obama, & Begich are going
Obama, & Begich are going down. Granted, the government groupies, & welfare worshipers (control freaks, & moochers) love BO care. But most of us reject tyranny, & that will become evident on Nov. 6. And then we pitch Begich overboard in 2014.
Obama, & Begich are going
Obama, & Begich are going down. Granted, the government groupies, & welfare worshipers (control freaks, & moochers) love BO care. But most of us reject tyranny, & that will become evident on Nov. 6. And then we pitch Begich overboard in 2014.
Obama, & Begich are going
Obama, & Begich are going down. Granted, the government groupies, & welfare worshipers (control freaks, & moochers) love BO care. But most of us reject tyranny, & that will become evident on Nov. 6. And then we pitch Begich overboard in 2014.
hellojuneau - Oh PLEASE!
hellojuneau - Did Fox "news" pick up this lie as well, or do you just believe every anonymous chain email you receive? If so, please give me your email so I can sell you a bridge I have......
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/feb/07/chain-emai...
On a related note -
Discussions and decisions like this would be a lot easier if there was some way to make the super pacs and politicians themselves (both sides) NOT blatantly lie about facts and figures they put in advertisements and speeches, that people swallow hook line and sinker. We've gotten way past a little stretching of the truth in politics today.
just curious....
about how the 'we don't need government interference' crowd justifies not wanting government to be involved in insurance decisions, but it's somehow ok for government to tell someone who they can marry, or that they have to have an inter-vaginal probe before making a personal health decision......?
I'm just sayin - if government should stay out of your business, than it should stay out of everyone's, yes?
Anyone read it?
Did anyone actually read the AFA, or is this another case of the "Patriot Act" where everyone molds their personal interpretation to their predisposition without really looking at facts?
- What's wrong with insurance companies not being allowed to exclude children for pre-existing conditions? If an infant has leukemia, I don't feel he should be told "no". Just my opinion.
- What's wrong with insurance companies not being allowed to have lifetime limits on their coverage?
- What's wrong with not being denied because of an unintentional mistake on an application?
- What's wrong with insurance companies not being allowed to require approval for you to go to an ER outside of your plan's network?
- What's wrong with being able to stay on your parent's coverage if you are under 26 and have nothing else? It's not a requirement...it's an option. That option would've been nice for a friend who has $150k in medical bills because he was hit by a car. But who cares about that when you can complain about abortion, right?
- What's wrong with eliminating retroactive insurance fees after cancellations that stem from serious illnesses? (Oh, you're going through chemotherapy....not only are you paying from now on, but we want more money on top of that)
- What's so bad about the option of still being able to choose your own doctor? It's just an option...
I don't want to add fuel to a fire, but it gets a little tiring hearing the same old "I don't care about specifics, abortion abortion!!" and "this is socialism or communism, durrr I'm not sure, same diff" arguments. Agree or disagree with the bill, but take the damn time to read it and stop talking about Obama and abortion for once. Between the black and white there's a grey area, so argue about some specifics and how these things affect YOU, give REAL numbers on how it will hurt YOUR life, instead of bathing in your own pathetic dogmatism about abortion.
Swimmer Girl....exactly...You
Swimmer Girl....exactly...You should be on the less government band wagon...
Treyshawn…there is nothing wrong with insurance companies not being able to do those things….but we don’t need the government to legislative to achieve it…we as the consumer can dictate which business ( and thus which business practices) survive by voting with our dollar.
The only entity that can take your money without your consent is the government. Well…and now the health insurance companies….
@noroadfugtive, it seems too
@noroadfugtive, it seems too many people on the "less government band wagon" would like the government to decide everyone else' fate instead of their own. Heterosexuals requesting the government to ban homosexuals from marrying. Men requesting the government to decide for women how best to take care of their bodies.
In this particular instance, the people are being forced to do something FOR themselves and not just everyone else. IF this is government overreach, why are most of the the people against this still supporting a ban on gay marriage, vaginal probes for women having abortions, or limiting contraception?
It seems most of the people on the "less government band wagon" are simply hypocrites who want to be left alone, but want to keep an eye on their neigbors. Well, here's an opportunity for these people to shine. At least stay consistent on the government intrusion.
ACA promises health insurance for everyone, and if you really don't want it, you can opt out and pay a penalty (tax). If you really don't like the thought of your money going into a big pool with everyone else' in order to help bring affordable healthcare to all Americans, then just think of it as a military tax.