DENVER – Colorado Senate Republicans want to repeal the ailing Colorado health exchange and move Coloradans to the federal exchange that was created with the Affordable Care Act.
Sen. Jim Smallwood, R-Parker, said Thursday he is sponsoring Senate Bill 3, which is scheduled to go before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, because of additional fees incorporated in the exchange’s funding, the growing cost of premiums, and the reduction of options and providers for Coloradans enrolled in the exchange’s plans.
“I’m nervous for the citizens of our state that live in the, what I believe are now 19 counties, that are now down to only one health insurance company,” Smallwood said.
The idea that the remaining companies might withdraw is concerning, and points out the failures of the system, he said.
“There appears to be some obvious failures, systemically, within the idea of our state-based exchange, and my thought was ‘would the same thing happen if we were on healthcare.gov?’” he said.
By repealing the exchange, Smallwood believes residents would see a reduction in a redundant fee, as Coloradans pay federal taxes for the ACA and state taxes for the exchange, and an increase in the state general fund after closing of a tax loophole open to insurance companies.
The loophole is a $5 million donation that insurance companies pay into the exchange that is a credit toward the insurance premium taxes they pay to the state, he said.
While some Democrats agree that the financial health of the exchange must be evaluated, the national uncertainty around health care coverage makes this poor timing for SB 3, said Sen. Irene Aguilar, D-Denver. Congress and the Trump administration are working to repeal the ACA, also known as Obamacare, but have not unveiled a replacement.
“There is so much that is in turmoil and chaos right now that I would personally just as soon wait until we know what Washington is going to do,” Aguilar said.
The transition between the two exchanges is also more complex than the picture Smallwood paints, Aguilar said.
Smallwood said the wait and see approach is dangerous, however, and he is not willing to let Coloradans continue to foot the bill for the exchange, while waiting for Washington’s decision on the ACA.
“I can’t look my constituency in the eye and say ‘this is a good cost-benefit trade-off.’”
Aguilar said she would not be opposed to repealing the exchange if it was the responsible financial option, but is concerned about the loss of the effort that went into making it function and the implications for those on the exchange.
“If this does have to happen in the future because of financial reasons, I wouldn’t be opposed if we had made a ready-made plan for how we’re going to do that, how we are going to minimize the effect on our consumers, because it’s been a long time getting to where we are.”
Smallwood’s efforts with the bill might be for naught as most Democrats see a repeal of the exchange as a nonstarter unless there is a clear replacement.
“We’ll fight that. That’s not healthy for the people of Colorado, to just take something out without replenishing it,” Sen. Lucía Guzmán, D-Denver, said when the bill was announced on the first day of the session.
That was affirmed by Gov. John Hickenlooper in his State of the State speech earlier this month when he said Coloradans had a right to some level of state-sponsored health insurance and he would not let the exchange die without a replacement.
“If changes are inevitable, I will fight for a replacement plan that protects the people who are covered now and doesn’t take us backward,” Hickenlooper said.
The Republicans do not have a replacement plan if it is repealed, which would take effect on Jan. 1, 2018, if the bill passes.
Smallwood said while he cannot guarantee that premium costs and access to provider options would increase, he doesn’t see it deteriorating.
“I don’t think that it could be any worse. If it was proven to me that it was going to be worse, again, I wouldn’t carry the bill,” he said.
SB 3 has no sponsorship from Democrats, and Smallwood said he doesn’t see that changing anytime soon.
Without bipartisan support the prospects of the bill making it through the Democrat-controlled House is dubious.
lperkins@durangoherald.com
In other action
Seventeen bills were scheduled to go before committees Thursday, and three had a second reading.
House Bill 1005, which modernizes laws relating to the State Auditor office; HB 1019, which has to do with the amount county treasurers collect on tax sales, and HB 1030, which updates the 1921 Irrigation Districts law, passed a second reading in the House.
Bills that went before committees are:
Senate Bill 11 would create a technical demonstration forum to study how advanced technologies could improve access to public transportation for people with disabilities.
The forum would consist of seven members who would gather, document and distribute data to the governor and members of the General Assembly by the end of the year. The bill passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, 5-0.
S.B. 65 would require health care professionals and facilities to make a list available to the public of prices for the common services they provide. The bill would also protect individuals who decide to pay out of pocket rather than put in health care claims. It passed, 5-0, in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
H.B. 1025 and 1074 would remove obsolete portions of the state constitution that cover Colorado’s legislative and congressional districting respectively. The bipartisan-sponsored bills are considered housekeeping measures that would eliminate nearly 30,000 words from the Colorado Revised Statutes. The bills passed 9-0 in a House committee and now goes to the full House.
Luke Perkins
