CORRECTED-RPT-UPDATE 1-After health ruling, will US be ready for the law?

Sun Jul 1, 2012 9:38am EDT

(Corrects name of Wisconsin governor in 7th paragraph)

* Court ruling fails to erase doubts about implementation

* Health officials insist expansion will go forward

* Some states seem unlikely to budge as election looms

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - Now that the Supreme Court has removed the main legal challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, policy experts question whether enough U.S. states will be ready to implement the law when it takes full effect in 2014.

Up to now, most states have avoided decisive action to build the private insurance exchanges that would extend health coverage to an additional 16 million Americans. Governors in largely Republican states who oppose the entire law may still refuse to act on the exchanges, requiring the federal government to step in to operate them.

"We will be ready to ensure that every American has access to affordable, high quality coverage on Jan. 1, 2014," Mike Hash, an official overseeing the exchanges effort at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said on Friday.

HHS says that 34 states have received $850 million in grants to help plan and build the exchanges. Accepting the funds alone does not signal significant progress, however.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks healthcare issues, 17 states have made no significant progress towards establishing an exchange or rejected the idea. Most of them voted for Republican candidates during the 2008 elections that brought Obama, a Democrat, to power.

Another 18 states are studying their options, leaving only 15 that have taken concrete steps to establish an exchange, Kaiser said.

Some health experts fear that many of the states holding off now will wait until the November elections in the hope Republicans will win control of the White House or Congress and repeal the law. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker announced on Thursday that he intended to do just that and other Republican governors, including Sam Brownback of Kansas, expressed similar views.

"If states really have the will to throw themselves into this, there is time to set up an exchange. But if states are going to wait for the election, then there isn't time," said health economist Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Former Obama administration officials acknowledge that two years of political battles since the healthcare law was passed in 2010 might hamper its full introduction.

"We have taken a two year diversion - which is one thing I'm worried about ... Everyone knows the law is going to be implemented and the question now really is how well," said Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser.

The Supreme Court ruling on Thursday upheld the core of the law, but also allowed states to opt out of a planned expansion of the Medicaid health program for the poor. That could also jeopardize the law's aim of enrolling another 16 million of the most vulnerable Americans via Medicaid.

"Come this November, we are going to elect a new President and a new Congress who will repeal and replace Obamacare. That's why we have refused to implement the Obamacare health exchange or the Medicaid expansion," Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said in an emailed statement.

TIME OF THE ESSENCE

With the exchanges, timing is key. States must build information technology systems capable of quickly evaluating individual applicants to see if they are eligible for private insurance or Medicaid, based on household income and other factors. Only Massachusetts, which overhauled its health system in 2006, has built one to date.

Gruber estimates that any given state could require a year to build an exchange's infrastructure. Those that wait until after the November ballot could be ill-prepared by the autumn of 2013 when the federal government expects exchanges to offer open enrollment.

The administration set a Nov. 16, 2012, deadline for states to confirm they are building an exchange and maintains that will leave the federal government enough time to step in and set one up where needed.

But health experts say federal exchanges could create service gaps by overlooking unique features in state health system, while posing political risks to local officials by providing benefits they denied to their citizens.

"Our objective is that every state will operate a state-based exchange," Hash said.

Joseph Antos, a health expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, believes the administration could have difficulty setting up federal exchanges because of the sheer complexity of the task.

"They won't be ready everywhere. And even the degree of readiness - the idea that everything's going to be smooth - smooth is not the word you attach to implementation," he said. (Additional reporting by Salimah Ebrahim in Washington and Kathy Finn in New Orleans; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Andre Grenon)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
Farhana123 wrote:
Wisconsin Governor Rick Scott??

Jul 01, 2012 8:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
IrateNate wrote:
Just because Obama and the Democrats desire this insurance scam does not mean that the American people have to swallow it. Let’s first try to have the charlatan thrown out on his ear, then we will dismantle this abomination – his “legacy” – in it’s entirety.

Who in their right mind would think that the way to reduce health care costs and provide government funding for those who cannot afford health care would begin with adding 16,500 new IRS agents to access and collect penalties for those who already have insurance?

Who in their right mind would think that the way to reduce costs would be to create 160 new federal bureaucracies?

Only in the liberal Euro-Socialist Utopia does this kind of logic exist, and we can all see the eminent collapse of the Eurozone on the very near horizon.

How can we make people understand that the problems caused by government intrusion cannot possibly be more government intrusion?

Jul 01, 2012 8:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rokid wrote:
Under the Clinton administration the Republicans opposed single payer health insurance. So, the President adopted their plan, i.e. RomneyCare, and the Republicans opposed it. The Supreme Court declared ObamaCare constitutional and now the Republican states are resisting implementation.

It’s very clear that the Republicans just don’t want everyone to have access to affordable healthcare. If they win in November and can kill off the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid, their dream will come true.

Jul 01, 2012 9:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.