Nextgov/FCW - Authors - Michael Catalini

Why Insurers Want HealthCare.gov (and Obamacare) to Work

Michael Catalini, National Journal — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 09:49:34 -0500

Congressional Republicans have relentlessly attacked Obamacare. The White House has been equally staunch in its defense. Yet despite the political entrenchment characterizing the health care debate, one group is quietly tacking toward a more practical solution.

Insurance companies are trying to ensure that the law works.

While few will speculate on how they’d react if the Affordable Care Act’s troubles were to continue, insurers—some of whom opposed passage of the law—say they’re working closely with the White House and executive-branch agencies to make sure the problems that plagued the law’s first few months don’t further hamper enrollment.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the group’s members are regularly providing technical feedback to the administration.

While the insurance industry is not monolithic—several companies, for example, have opted out of state exchanges—most insurers have a stake in making sure the legislation works.

From their point of view, the government is a business partner, which explains both their softly worded criticisms and their behind-the-scenes efforts to get the exchanges functioning.

“The insurance industry is in a bit of an abusive, codependent relationship,” said Tom Miller, a resident fellow and health insurance expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “They can’t step out too far.”

Insurers could criticize Obamacare more forcefully, outside observers say, but that could risk alienating the administration. To remain on the sidelines would mean ceding a say in how the law operates.

“I kind of wish there was a deeper conspiracy,” Miller said. “But the bottom line is that they want to stay in business.”

Politically, the law has become a lead weight for Democrats, with Republicans relentlessly hammering the woeful rollout. The Affordable Care Act is particularly troubling for vulnerable Senate Democrats, who are stressing their attempts to fix it legislatively. A pack of Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, have proposed legislation aimed at allowing Americans whose plans were canceled to keep them.

But insurers by and large oppose those fixes because rates for 2014 have already been set and restoring canceled plans is easier said than done. Zirkelbach, for instance, said those kinds of proposals amount to “changing the rules in the middle of the game,” and AHIP would not support Landrieu’s proposal.

Therein lies the insurers’ leverage, say health policy experts. The White House cannot afford to “throw them overboard,” Miller said, because it needs their help with the website. Insurers have been forward about this point in particular.

“In addition to fixing the technical problems with HealthCare.gov, the significant ‘back-end’ issues must also be resolved to ensure that coverage can begin on Jan. 1, 2014,” AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni said recently in a statement.

The administration has three months to demonstrate to insurers that the Affordable Care Act is succeeding, according to Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies. He also argues that there are bellwether insurers to watch.

Wellmark, a Blue Cross Blue Shield subsidiary in Iowa and South Dakota, is not participating in the Obamacare exchanges in 2014, but plans to offer coverage in 2015. An important indicator of how well the law is doing, Haislmaier said, would be if Wellmark revises its 2015 plans.

Meanwhile, observers expect insurers to cooperate with the White House on setting up the exchanges.

This article appears in the December 4, 2013, edition of NJ Daily as What’s More Powerful Than Politics? Profit—at Least for Health Insurers.

(Image via Gajus/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Congress Turns to Intel Committees as Members Seek Details on Data Collection

Michael Catalini, National Journal — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:46:43 -0400

Rep. Elijah Cummings walked out of a closed all-member House hearing on the government’s data collection last week and headed for the nearest exit, trailed by a gaggle of reporters. They asked the Maryland Democrat if he had learned anything new about the surveillance. Yes, Cummings replied, but no, he couldn’t talk about it. “I don’t feel comfortable with the program,” he added.

Moments later, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., explained in greater detail the issue facing lawmakers: Members have access to intelligence, but without the aid of staff or counsel because it’s classified. So, deciphering the material can be challenging, Sherman said.

As revelations about the government’s collection of phone and Internet data emerge, Cummings’s and Sherman’s reactions suggest how far removed some rank-and-file members have been from overseeing the programs even as members of the influential House and Senate Intelligence committees vouch for the intelligence community and argue they carry out sufficient oversight.

The committees, through their chairmen and ranking members, are taking on a prominent role in explaining the government’s programs, in part because until Edward Snowden’s leak, they had been secret, but also because the committees are charged with overseeing the intelligence community and members are eager to point out that they’re doing their job.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., vowed last week to declassify information they argue would show the programs have thwarted attacks.

“If you can see just the number of cases where we’ve actually stopped a plot, I think Americans will come to a different conclusion than all the misleading rhetoric I’ve heard over the last few weeks,” Rogers said on CNN’s State of the Union.

It’s not just House Democrats who said they knew little about the National Security Agency surveillance programs. Tea-party hero Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said Sunday on Fox and Friends that lawmakers were “kept totally in the dark.” Other lawmakers emerging from a closed all-Congress briefing in the Capitol Visitors Center last week said they had received little information about the programs. Freshman Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., told National Journal Daily that the briefing was the first time he heard of the programs. Veteran Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said last week he had not heard of one of the programs.

For Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and national security hardliners, that’s unacceptable.

“To complain that, ‘I didn’t know this was happening’—we’ve had many, many meetings that have been both classified and unclassified,” Reid said. “If they don’t come and don’t take advantage of this, they shouldn’t come and say they haven’t been aware of this.”

“If you didn’t know, you got nobody to blame but yourself,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., according to Public Radio International.

For some members of the Intelligence committees, though, it’s hardly surprising that panel members help translate complex and classified issues for their colleagues. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stopped short of comparing the intelligence committees to ambassadors for the intelligence community; he said that suggests lawmakers work for the community and not the public. But committees do serve as a kind of proxy for lawmakers.

“In fact, the committees are acting on behalf of their colleagues,” King said, “just like the [Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee] acts on behalf of their colleagues on health and other issues.”

Over the past 10 days, the committees have spent “certainly a great deal of time” on government surveillance, King said. On Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a closed briefing of all senators on data collection. The committee meets again this Thursday, part of a regular series of meetings held on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The House will hold a hearing Tuesday titled “How Disclosed NSA Programs Protect Americans, and Why Disclosure Aids Our Adversaries.” It also held an all-member hearing last week.

The committees’ defense of the programs, though, makes some experts skeptical because, they argue, the committees have close ties to the intelligence community. Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and a civil libertarian, is critical of the committees’ attempts at oversight.

“These are people who long ago fell in line with the intelligence community,” he said. “Many of their staff are former intelligence people or they have gone into the intelligence field, so it’s a really quite incestuous relationship. It’s a true revolving door that goes back and forth. There is no evidence of serious effort at oversight.”

Turley said he has testified before both panels in classified settings, and was direct about the problem with their reputation.

“I haven’t hesitated to be honest with them that both the House and Senate Intelligence committees are viewed as a colossal joke by whistle-blowers and civil libertarians. These are committees that have long been viewed as captured by the agencies they are overseeing,” he said.

Not surprisingly, King disagreed with the criticism.

“I’ve seen some very sharp questioning, some great skepticism, from both sides of the aisle,” he said.

Stacy Kaper contributed to this article, which appears in the June 18, 2013, edition of National Journal Daily as "Lawmakers Turn to Intel Panels for Surveillance Details."

]]>

Government’s Data Grabs Are Unlikely to Prompt Legislative Action

Michael Catalini, National Journal — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:49:34 -0400

Despite the political and media furor surrounding the recent news about data collection by the National Security Agency, the appetite among some top lawmakers for undoing the legislation that allowed the sweeps is meager.

The revelations that the government obtained millions of Verizon customers’ phone records, and that the NSA directly accessed information from top Internet service providers, prompted libertarian and liberal lawmakers alike to decry the news.

But congressional leaders have been reticent to suggest legislative changes. It’s a signal, insiders say, not to expect Congress to roll back the laws that empowered the secret courts to authorize the programs.

“I can’t imagine any legislative proposal to amend some of these programs will be passed by Congress,” said Jim Manley, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

For one, Congress has twice authorized the legislation first crafted during George W. Bush’s presidency, and with President Obama’s approval. The imperative to provide security has been strong and deeply ingrained among lawmakers since Sept. 11, 2001.

“I know for a fact the programs saved lives,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., coming off the floor after adjourning the Senate for the week.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including leaders from both parties, pointed to the security benefits of the sweeps, first reported in The Guardian and The Washington Post.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., issued a joint statement noting the intelligence community has “helped protect the nation.” Chambliss earlier this week said the surveillance was “nothing new,” and Feinstein pointed out that Congress received briefings on the NSA’s activity.

Reid said this week that people should just “calm down.” A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, referred a reporter to the committees of jurisdiction, avoiding the topic. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., noted that the program has halted attacks.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina even defended embattled Attorney General Eric Holder this week, arguing the NSA and FBI’s telecommunications collection is an effective national security tool.

“Most members of Congress would rather err on the side of security than on the side of privacy,” said John Feehery, who was an aide to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Not all lawmakers support the programs, though. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a bill on Friday “to stop the National Security Agency from spying on citizens of the United States.” Paul, who is considering a presidential run in 2016, called the programs an “assault” on citizens’ rights, putting him in the same camp as left-leaning colleagues like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Politically, though, some insiders predict efforts like Paul’s won’t gain traction. “Privacy is important to a small segment of the population, but security is important to a bigger section of the population,” Feehery said.

This article appears in the June 10, 2013, edition of National Journal Daily as "Government Data Grabs Unlikely to Prompt Hill Action."

]]>

Fiscal cliff buzz muffles medical device industry message

Michael Catalini, National Journal — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:26:26 -0500

Several dozen medical device industry execs swarmed the Hill on Thursday, but the buzz over the fiscal cliff might have drowned out their message.

The CEOs' pitch to lawmakers: The medical device tax that goes into effect in January is going to cripple the industry and they should repeal it.

More than 60 meetings later and the message was well received among lawmakers, Advanced Medical Technology Association's JC Scott told the Alley.

That may be, but the chances of success for AdvaMed, which partnered on Thursday's lobbying push with Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance and the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, are slim, lobbyists acknowledge.

"We went into it thinking it was an uphill climb ... and we realize there's a small window," Scott said.

Part of the issue for the advocacy groups is that the Capitol's attention has been captured by the end-of-year fiscal challenges facing Congress.

Asked if the medical device tax was on the House's radar, Ways and Means ranking DemocratSandy Levin of Michigan suggested Congress is more concerned with other tax issues.

"The issues that have to be done, just have to be done. … [The alternative minimum tax] goes haywire. [Unemployment insurance] it's cut off immediately. Two million people lose their benefits instantaneously," Levin said.

Still, lobbyists for the advocacy groups aren't about to give up on eliminating the tax. AdvaMed, MITA and MDMA together have spent nearly $1.5 million on lobbying this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The groups calculate the 2.3 percent tax would cost $20 billion and would limit research and development, hiring and other investments.

Advocates are prepared to lobby into the 113th Congress. The tax, part of the 2010 health care law, goes into effect in January—just as the new Congress arrives.

(Image via sfam_photo/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

FBI arrests 16 in broad cyberattack crackdown

Michael Catalini — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

In a sweeping crackdown against cybercrime, the FBI on Tuesday arrested 14 people on charges stemming from their alleged involvement in a November attack on PayPal's website, the Department of Justice announced. Two others were arrested on similar charges.

One of indictments unsealed on Tuesday alleges that "in retribution for PayPal's termination of WikiLeaks' donation account, a group calling itself Anonymous coordinated and executed distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against PayPal's computer servers using an open source computer program the group makes available for free download on the Internet."

The arrests were part of a concerted effort to rein in online attacks, the agency said, but this particular attack had been one chapter in an episode that led to massive disclosures about U.S. diplomacy abroad.

FBI agents executed more than 35 search warrants throughout the United States on Tuesday "as part of an ongoing investigation into coordinated cyberattacks against major companies and organizations," the Justice Department said.

]]>