[…] Even if parents with kids in CHP+ do smoke and buy lottery tickets at a higher rate than parents with private health insurance, what’s to make us think that they would all of a sudden stop spending money on those things and instead pay premiums for CHP+? Is our goal to punish those parents for what better-off families view as poor choices, or is the goal to make sure that as many kids as possible have health insurance? If it’s the latter, then the point made by Senator Brophy is irrelevant.
children
CHP+ Premiums Will Result In More Uninsured Kids
[…] However, the real world is not always ideal. The Post editorial makes some very good points, and I don’t doubt that if CPH+ moves to a monthly premium system this summer, there will be some kids who lose their coverage, and fewer children will enroll in the future compared with how many would have enrolled if monthly premiums were not part of the deal. […]
Avoiding Adverse Selection
[…] Hopefully the fact that insurers can designate an open enrollment period for children to be accepted on a guaranteed issue basis will make it more likely that parents will keep their children continuously insured. The spirit of the law regarding coverage for children is good: It isn’t right that sick kids should be unable to get health insurance at any price. But with no requirement that all kids be insured, and without a designated open enrollment period, the new law would absolutely have encouraged adverse selection.
Open Enrollment Period For Children
[…] The Obama Administration had been clear in saying that health insurance companies would have to accept all children under age 19, without regard for pre-existing conditions. But last week that position was clarified with a bit of added leeway for insurers, allowing them to set open enrollment periods during which children can have access to health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. […]