Friday, 27 May 2016

Princess Health and  Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky seeks nominations for seats on its board of directors and Community Advisory Committee. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky seeks nominations for seats on its board of directors and Community Advisory Committee. Princessiccia

The Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky is seeking nominations for two seats on its board of directors and three seats on its Community Advisory Committee, which drive the foundation's policy work and investments. Nominations are due July 22.

Board members represent the interests of Kentucky's medically under-served and include individuals working in health policy, health-care services and health-care finance. However, the board also seeks members who are not employed by health-care organizations and can provide varying perspectives.

The two board seats available are in Jefferson County and an at-large seat that can be filled by anyone in the state.

The Community Advisory Committee, which advises the board and appoints some of its members, is seeking new members from areas not represented: the Purchase, Buffalo Trace, Gateway, Fivco, Big Sandy and Cumberland Valley area development districts. The greater Lexington area is over-represented, the foundation says.

The committee is seeking two additional members who are executive directors or trustees of organizations working to address the unmet health care needs of Kentucky. It is also seeking members with expertise outside health care, such as in business, law and education.

"Service on the board or CAC is an opportunity to help improve the health of Kentucky through policy changes, grantmaking and other means, while creating lasting connections with other individuals who have different backgrounds but similar interests," the foundation said in a news release. "It is anticipated that the board and CAC will be developing a new strategic plan during 2017, making this a particularly exciting time to join. The Foundation has a highly skilled and dedicated staff to manage day-to-day activities, enabling the Board and CAC to focus on strategic direction and efforts to improve the Foundation's programs."

The full call for nominations and a nomination form can be found on the Foundation's website, http://healthy-ky.org/.

Thursday, 26 May 2016

Princess Health and  May 26th, 2016 Days Like This. Princessiccia

Princess Health and May 26th, 2016 Days Like This. Princessiccia

May 26th, 2016 Days Like This

The weather coverage kept me up last night until 1:30am at the studio--then home, posted a Tweets Only blog post--and finally was able to fall asleep a little after 2am. A colleague covered the 6am hour of my show, thank goodness. Today was rough and challenging.

On a day like this, I must embrace a higher self-awareness. I made sure I had food options in place and I especially made sure to engage in support communications. The storms held off this afternoon and that was a good thing. It gave me just enough time to get home and manage a nap before my commitment at the theatre. I did the opening audience welcome and announcements at a big concert tonight. I hated to miss 80% of it, but I had to go. The possibility of storms again tonight shaped my choices. And storms are headed toward us, again--so as soon as I post this, I'm out the door to cover more late night/early morning weather--and tomorrow will be similar to today as far as what I must do to remain in a positive mindset despite exhaustion. Good support and solid planning is critical on days like this.

Speaking of planning, Mary asked a good question on my Facebook page:
"Sean, I love that you keep it simple and smart!! Question...how far out in advance do you plan/prepare your meals, snacks, etc.?"  

My Reply:
Great question, Mary. To me, simple is sustainable. If I make it too complicated, I might not enjoy it as much! I'll evolve naturally at a nice measured pace!

Planning and preparing--very important topic, and it's different for each person. For me--I don't like pre-cooking--preparing meals "for the week." For some, that works very very well. I'm more of an in the moment person. It doesn't mean I don't plan. I do!

But my planning is this: I make sure I have several available options at home and at work. As long as I'm stocked with the foods I need and enjoy--I can make my decisions, even last minute, and be perfectly okay. Same planning with snacks-- I know what's available and I choose what I feel like having in the moment.

For example-- I honestly haven't a clue what I'm having for dinner tonight. I do know a few things-- I know I'll keep it in a nice dinner range of calories, whatever it is-- and I know I have some options-- Salmon, sirloin, asparagus--maybe I'll grab some other kind of veggie at the store...a sweet potato--oh, and I have some chicken breasts that need cooked--and frozen shrimp... Hmmm... Options! They're all waiting for me to decide--and I might make the decision right before cooking! If the day gets crazy--I might decide to skip cooking and grab something out-- I have another set of go-to options in that direction.

So--planning and preparing means different things for different people. The way I do it wouldn't work well for some. Now--I will add this: If I know I'm going to be out--and busy--and not near a kitchen to prepare something--I'll make sure to plan, prepare and pack (The three P's!) something for my man bag-- Usually it's what I call an "on-the-go meal" consisting of almonds, fruit and cheese...In fact, I'll likely being doing that very thing tomorrow midday. The central idea is to have what you need when and where you need it-- and then you can decide. Make sense? Thanks for the great question!

The interview from a couple of weeks ago on South Jersey's News/Talk WPG with Michelle Dawn Mooney was released today on Michelle's SoundCloud. It was a lengthy interview about this blog, the book and my overall story. I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to visit with Michelle on her show. It was wonderful! She's incredible. Here's the link to the interview audio, simply click the link below and press play:

https://soundcloud.com/middayswithmichelle/sean-a-addams-interview
It says "Sean A Addams" on the file-- but it's me!! Michelle had my name correct during the live on-air interview.

Okay--I'm letting the Tweets tell the rest of today's story. I'm headed to the studio!

Today's Live-Tweet Stream:
















































Thank you for reading and your continued support,
Strength,
Sean

Princess Health and Are You Ready for Some (Political) Football? - the NFL, Concussion Research, the NIH, and the Revolving Door. Princessiccia

Probably because it involved the favorite American sport, the controversy about the risk of concussions to professional National Football League (NFL) players, and how the NFL has handled the issue is very well known.  A recent article in Stat, however, suggested that one less well known aspect of the story overlaps some issues to concern to Health Care Renewal.

Allegations that a Prominent Physician and NFL Official Tried to Influence the NIH Grant Review Process

The article began,

Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, president of Boston�s Brigham and Women�s Hospital [BWH] and one of the nation�s most prominent medical executives, was part of a National Football League effort to 'steer funding' for a landmark concussion study away from a group of respected brain researchers, according to a congressional committee report that was sharply critical of the league.

The report found that the NFL 'inappropriately attempted to influence' the National Institutes of Health�s [NIH] grant selection process.

Dr Nabel, in fact, not only runs the BWH, a renowned teaching hospital and major component of Partners Healthcare, but also serves as the "chief health and medical advisor" to the NFL. Anyone who has followed even a bit of the media coverage about the NFL and concussions affecting football players knows that the NFL could be negatively affected by any more research that associates playing professional football, concussions, and the adverse effects of concussions. 

The Stat article chronicled the intricate communications between Dr Nabel and the NIH as documented by a report from the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

 It cited a series of communications between NFL representatives, including Nabel, and officials of the NIH, and a foundation that accepts gifts from private donors to support NIH research. The discussions began after the NIH decided last year to award a $16 million grant to a research team led by Dr. Robert Stern of Boston University � but before the award was publicly announced.

The money for the grant was to come from a donation pledged by the NFL to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, and league officials say they were concerned about aspects of Stern�s group and the proposed study.

Research by Stern�s team and BU colleagues has helped establish a link between football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, long-term brain damage that�s been observed in a growing number of athletes, including former NFL players, who suffered repeated head injuries.

The implication seems to be that this research group might be counted on to fearlessly pursue research even if the outcomes suggested that playing football might lead to adverse medical effects, which might not be so good for the NFL's interests.  So,

Nabel, who knows the NIH well from her 10 years working as a high-level manager in the agency, sent two emails to Dr. Walter Koroshetz, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [NINDS], according to the report. That�s the NIH branch that was awarding the grant.

In one email on June 23, 2015, she wrote, 'I am taking a neutral stance here,' while noting a concern about a potential conflict of interest: members of the NIH grant review panel had coauthored papers with two researchers that she had heard might be receiving the grant � Dr. Ann McKee and Dr. Robert Cantu of BU.

Later that day, she wrote Koroshetz that 'a Dr. Stern, who may also be with this group, has filed independent testimony in the NFL/Players Association settlement.'

Indeed, Stern was critical of how the settlement would be administered, pointing out flaws with the neuropsychological tests that the league proposed using to determine how to compensate injured players.


 Notwithstanding that Dr Nabel had an obvious conflict of interest herself: she worked for the NFL.  In any case,  

'I hope this group is able to approach their research in an unbiased manner,' Nabel�s email continued, the report says.

Nabel sent Stern�s testimony to Koroshetz, according to the report.

'My sole objective,' Nabel said in her statement, was to ask her former NIH colleagues to 'ensure there were no conflicts of interest among grant applicants.'

The NIH found no conflicts involving the grant review panel and stuck with its decision to award the grant to the Stern group. It ended up using internal funds, not the NFL money, to pay for the grant.

The NIH told STAT it agrees with the 'characterization of events in the report.'
An Affront to the Sanctity of the Grant Review Process?

Although Dr Nabel and the NFL asserted that they acted appropriately at all times, neither the committee staff nor one very prominent ethicist agreed,

The committee report said that Koroshetz disagreed ..., and said he was aware of no other instance where a donor raised objections to a grantee prior to the issuance of a notice of grant award.'

'The NFL�s characterization of the appropriateness of its actions suggests a lack of understanding of the importance of the NIH�s independent peer review process,' the committee report states.

Nabel�s spokeswoman said Koroshetz never told Nabel her actions were inappropriate. 'In fact, all of their interactions were very collegial and cordial,' she said.

I will interject that the question was not whether Dr Nabel was hostile or bullying, but was whether she tried to inappropriately influence the grant review process.  So also,

Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University, said Nabel�s actions, as described in the report, risk harming Nabel�s reputation and that of the Brigham. 'When she did anything to try to shape the selection of investigators or challenge the objectivity' of the grant selection process, he said, 'she had to know that that was 100 percent inappropriate, 100 percent unacceptable.'

Having served on numerous NIH and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) review committees (known as "study sections"),  let me add some context at this point.  Study section members must meet rigorous standards for freedom from conflicts of interest.  They also fiercely guard their independence.  The grant reviews they construct are supposed to be entirely about the scientific, clinical and public health merit of the proposals, and the scores they give proposals are the most important determinants of whether it gets funding.  Funding decisions are actually made by agency staff and advisory boards, but are supposed to depend only on the reviews and the general priority of the proposals' topics.  Nobody - I repeat, nobody - outside of this process is supposed to influence the funding decisions.

So the notion that big wigs from big outside organizations with vested interests in how a particular research project might turn out were communicating with top NIH officials about grant proposals, and that the officials allowed them to continue to communicate, and allowed even the chance they would be influenced by their communication strikes this old reviewer, to quote Dr Caplan, as "100 inappropriate, 100 percent unacceptable."

Did the Revolving Door Enable the Attempt to Influence NIH Grant Review?

Not directly discussed in the Stat article, however, was why Dr Koroshetz, director of NINDS, was willing to accept, if not agree with Dr Nabel's communications.  The article did note that Dr Nabel was a former "high-level manager" at the NIH.  In fact, according to her official Brigham and Womens' Hospital biography, Dr Nabel was director of the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute from 2005-2009.  She became CEO of the BWH in 2010.  Thus, she was a former top NIH leader who once held a rank commensurate with that held by Dr Koroshetz.

But wait, there is more.  Also according to her official BWH biography, Dr Nabel's husband is one  Gary Nabel, now the chief scientific officer at Sanofi.  Dr Gary Nabel, in turn, was Director of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), another NIH institute, through 2012, but then according to Science, became chief scientific officer at Sanofi. So Dr Nabel's husband was also a high-ranking NIH leader, although apparently not as high-ranking as his spouse and the NINDS director with whom she communicated. 

Thus it appears that maybe Dr Nabel had outsized influence at the NIH and on the NINDS director because she was a former NHLBI director, and the spouse of a former high-ranking NIAID leader.  Her attempts to influence the NIH grant application process therefore appear to be a possible manifestation, albeit delayed, and partially at one spousal remove, of the revolving door pheonomenon.

We have noted that the revolving door is a species of conflict of interest. Worse, some experts have suggested that the revolving door is in fact corruption.  As we noted here, the experts from the distinguished European anti-corruption group U4 wrote,

The literature makes clear that the revolving door process is a source of valuable political connections for private firms. But it generates corruption risks and has strong distortionary effects on the economy, especially when this power is concentrated within a few firms.
  This case suggests how the revolving door may enable certain of those with private vested interests to have excess influence, way beyond that of ordinary citizens, on how the government works.

Worse, this case also suggests how it seems that the country is increasingly run by a cozy group of insiders with ties to both government and industry.  In fact, just a little more digging reveals that a key player in this case has even more ties to big private health care organizations.  According to ProPublica, in the last three months of 2014, Dr Elizabeth Nabel received $26,070 from Medtronic, mainly for food, travel and lodging, but which included $8572 for "promotional speaking/ other."  In 2015, she was appointed to the board of directors of Medtronic, despite not having previously owned any Medtronic stock, according to the company's 2015 proxy statement.  Also in 2015, she was appointed to the board of directors of Moderna Therapeutics.    Her husband, as noted above, now works as chief scientific officer for Sanofi.

So, as we have said before.... The continuing egregiousness of the revolving door in health care shows how health care leadership can play mutually beneficial games, regardless of the their effects on patients' and the public's health.  Once again, true health care reform would cut the ties between government and corporate leaders and their cronies that have lead to government of, for and by corporate executives rather than the people at large.

Video addendum: the beginning of "League of Denial" from PBS Frontline



ADDENDUM (29 May, 2016) - This post was republished on the Naked Capitalism blog.
Princess Health and  Medicaid stakeholders OK with healthy behavior incentives, oppose penalizing recipients who don't take part in cost sharing. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Medicaid stakeholders OK with healthy behavior incentives, oppose penalizing recipients who don't take part in cost sharing. Princessiccia

By Melissa Patrick and Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

Groups of people concerned about changes in Kentucky's Medicaid program are open to the state offering incentives for healthy behaviors, but they don't want to penalize recipients who can't or won't pay premiums, deductibles or co-payments.

So reports the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, which convened a meeting May 12 to hear from people with stakes in the program: individual health-care providers, health systems, consumers, consumer advocates, payers, public-health professionals and representatives of higher education.

�Participants were unified in opposing penalties to enforce cost-sharing provisions� such as premiums, deductibles or co-payments, the foundation's consultant said in a report on the meeting.

However, they supported cost sharing for procedures not deemed medically necessary and �had diverse perspectives on this matter, ranging from opposing any cost-sharing in Medicaid to proposing specific premium and co-payment amounts,� such as $5 monthly premiums.

Also, �Participants were generally very supportive of implementing incentives for healthy behaviors such as smoking cessation and health risk assessments,� the report said. �Incentives might be reductions in the amount of cost-sharing or themselves supportive of healthy behavior,� such as gym membership.

Gov. Matt Bevin has said he wants Medicaid recipients to have "skin in the game" through cost-sharing, arguing that Kentucky can't afford to have more than a fourth of its population getting free medical care.

Under federal health reform, then-Gov, Steve Beshear expanded Medicaid eligibility to households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, adding more than 400,000 more people to the rolls. The federal government pays for the expansion through this year, but next year the state will be responsible for 5 percent, rising in annual steps to the reform law's limit of 10 percent in 2020.

Bevin's administration is working on getting a waiver from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to create new ways to cover those in the expansion. Six states have such waivers, including Indiana, which Bevin has cited as an example of how Kentucky might change its program.

In Indiana, recipients who pay premiums based on income levels, ranging from $1 a month to 2 percent of income ($27 a month for those at 138 percent of poverty) get expanded benefits and are charged co-payments only for non-emergency use of emergency rooms, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Those above the poverty level who fail to pay are disenrolled and barred from re-enrolling for six months, in what is known as a "lock-out" rule.

Bevin has indicated that he wants to announce his plan this summer. By law, states that seek a waiver must hold at least two public hearings: one at least 20 days before submitting the application to CMS, and the second after CMS accepts the application.

Stakeholders who attended the foundation's May 12 convening wanted to make sure their voices were heard early on in the process.

"Our goal is to help inform the process of changing the way Kentucky provides Medicaid services to ensure that we maintain the gains achieved under the Affordable Care Act, while also enabling the state to try new methods of ensuring access to affordable quality health care for Medicaid beneficiaries," Foundation President and CEO Susan Zepeda said in a news release.

"The biggest takeaway for me was the energy and commitment in the room," Zepeda said in a telephone interview. "A lot of thoughtfulness clearly went into sharing their experience and making suggestions on how to make the system more cost effective."

Before breaking into groups to offer their imput, stakeholders were given an overview of the state's Medicaid expansion and an overview of an issue brief created by the State Health Access Data Assistance Center at the University of Minnesota that looked at how waiver provisions are set up in five other states. Foundation staff wrote the 25-page "Stakeholder Input Report" that summarized suggestions and concerns and broke them into eight areas:

Cost-sharing and penalties: Health-care providers strongly opposed any cost-sharing, and uniformly opposed to any measure that involved "lock-out" penalties for failure to pay premiums, co-pays or deductibles.

"Our shared experience has been that we�ve been prohibited from denying care if a patient refuses or is unable to pay," the Physical and Oral Health Provider group said. "Therefore, the desired behavior isn�t actually enforced."

The Behavioral Health Provider group offered a compromise: �If the administration chooses to explore lock-outs we recommend that lock-outs be immediately lifted (upon payment) and payment be retroactive to the date the consumer re-enrolls.�

Participants in general were open to the idea of low co-payments, cost-sharing for non-medically necessary services, using Medicaid dollars to pay premiums for employer-sponsored insurance plans and charging co-payments for non-emergency use of the ER. They also agreed that certain groups, like those with chronic illnesses or disabilities, should be exempted.

Incentives: Most post-ACA waiver programs have implemented incentives for healthy behavior, and those at the meeting generally supported implementing evidence-based incentives, such as smoking cessation and health-risk assessments.

Zepeda said that most of the stakeholders wanted to see healthy behavior incentives used as credits against premiums, especially for recipients who can't afford them. "There is a recognition that people have a role to play in their own health care and the health decisions that they make," she said.

Benefits: Benefits include services covered under the health insurance plan. Some participants opposed any changes to current benefits; others wanted to expand existing benefits and still others suggested adding new benefits like housing. All agreed that medically necessary services should be covered for all enrollees.

Reimbursement: Kentucky shifted Medicaid in 2011 to managed care, in which managed-care organizations (usually insurance-company subsidiaries) are paid a flat fee per person as an incentive to limit claims. Providers have complained about the slow and low reimbursement, and participant suggestions included streamlining and accelerating the reimbursement process, increasing provider reimbursement rates, and adding new categories of reimbursed services and providers, like telehealth.

Systems improvement: Participants suggested simplifying administrative processes for providers; expanding providers' scope of practice; adding review panels; reducing the number of managed-care organizations; and creating a single list of drugs for all MCOs.

Health system transformation: Waivers allow states to explore ways to provide care differently through various transformation approaches. Suggestions included creating price transparency, through an all-payer, all-claims database; improving consumer health literacy; and moving beyond coverage issues to addressing access and quality.

�There was also interest among our group in examining a PCMH (patient-centered medical home) or health homes model to promote care coordination, and we feel strongly that pharmacists are essential part of the team and should be used in novel and more expansive ways,� the Colleges and Universities group said.

Evaluation: Waivers require states to perform an evaluation and make it public. Participants agreed that the process should include stakeholders and that findings should be made public periodically.

The Physical and Oral Health Provider group suggested the evaluation should answer the questions, �Have we maintained coverage levels? Have we improved access to care?�

Overarching themes: Many of the stakeholders mentioned two issues that were not included in the issue brief or discussion: integrating behavioral, physical and oral health services, and addressing the wide set of social factors that shape Kentucky's relatively poor health.

�Waivers should include methods to address social determinants of health as these areas are proving most effective in improving outcomes and reducing cost,� the Physical and Oral Health Provider group said. �We encourage inclusion of community health workers, peer support, medical respite care and other innovations to support social needs of patients.�

Zepeda said the Medicaid waiver drafting team faces many challenges. "We consider the rich conversation that happened on May 12 to be the start of the conversation," she said. "We have to find the cost effective win/win strategies that can reduce the cost of Medicaid going forward and let us continue to serve this expanded number of Kentuckians who now have health insurance."

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

Princess Health and  May 25th, 2016 Very Necessary. Princessiccia

Princess Health and May 25th, 2016 Very Necessary. Princessiccia

May 25th, 2016 Very Necessary

Very necessary "Tweets Only" version tonight!

Today's Live-Tweet Stream:


















































Thank you for reading and your continued support,
Strength,
Sean

Princess Health and Woman stuck by needle faces up to one year of testing for HIV and hepatitis; dirty needles becoming common in public places. Princessiccia

By Melissa Patrick
Kentucky Health News

A Monroe County woman was stuck by an insulin needle found in a pair of sweatpants she purchased at the Walmart in Tompkinsville and now faces up to a year of testing to make sure she hasn't been infected with HIV or hepatitis, Jacqueline Nie reports for WBKO-TV in Bowling Green.
Insulin syringes are commonly used by IV drug abusers

"I had to be tested for HIV and hepatitis and a drug screening," said Mary Crawford, who was stuck by the needle. "I have to go back from that in 30 days and be tested again, and again in 6 months from that 30 days."

"Crawford says through at least these next 7 months, she cannot share anything with her husband or children," Nie repports. Crawford warned others to be careful: "It could happen to anybody, anywhere."

The latest Kentucky Health Issues Poll found that 13 percent of Kentuckians said they knew someone with heroin problems. And insulin syringes and needles are commonly used to inject it.

Clark County Public Health Director Scott Lockard said that while this was the first time he had heard of a needle being placed in an article of clothing in a department store, he said it is not unusual for dirty needles to be found in public.

"Unfortunately it is becoming more common for used needles to be found by the public," Lockard said in an e-mail. "I have had reports of needles being found locally on streets, in parks, public parking lots, unoccupied buildings, and in restrooms in public venues."

The problem is so bad in Northern Kentucky, where 35 percent in the poll said they knew someone with a heroin problem, that they released public service announcements before Easter to remind children to look for needles before eggs. The Northern Kentucky Heroin Impact Response Taskforce organized police and egg-hunt organizers to search parks for needles prior to the hunts, and said it will continue to search public places for needles throughout the summer, Ben Katko reported for WXIX-TV (Fox 19).

One way to keep dirty needles off the street is through needle exchanges, which allow intravenous drug users to exchange dirty needles for clean ones. These programs were authorized in Kentucky by the 2015 anti-heroin bill, but require both local support and funding.

So far, only 14 counties in Kentucky have either approved or are operating needle exchanges: Jefferson, Fayette, Jessamine, Franklin, Clark, Kenton, Grant, Harrison, Pendleton, Carter, Boyd, Elliott, Pike and Knox. Some jurisdictions have rejected exchanges, saying they encourage drug use, despite pleas from experts who say that's not true and the programs lead users to treatment.

"Needle exchanges work," former state health commissioner William Hacker said. "It decreases the spread of infectious diseases. It takes dirty needles off the street. It is safer for the law enforcement and EMS. It also provides an opportunity to interact with people and divert them to effective treatment."



Princess Health and Health-insurance companies ask state for rate increases averaging 17 percent; failure of non-profit insurer blamed. Princessiccia

Department of Insurance website
Health insurers want rate increases averaging 22.3 percent in 2017 for individual policies in Kentucky. Counting small-group plans, the overall increase would be 17 percent, "continuing a national trend of hefty hikes as insurers adapt to a market reshaped by President Barack Obama's signature health care law," Adam Beam reports for The Associated Press.

"But the rate increases, if approved by state regulators, do not guarantee double-digit increases in the monthly premiums people have to pay," Beam notes. "The base rate is one of many factors companies use to determine how much someone pays in a monthly premium. Other factors include age, where a person lives and whether the person smokes."

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article79766917.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article79766917.html#storylink=cpy

The average requested increases for individual policies range from 7.6 percent for Aetna Health Inc. to 33.7 percent for Louisville-based Humana Inc., which said recently that it was losing money on Obamacare plans and is working on a merger with Aetna (to which Missouri objected this week). Baptist Health Plan wants 26.68 percent more, Anthem Health Plans 22.9 percent, and CareSource 20.55 percent, all on average.

�The Department of Insurance will fully investigate all proposed rate increase requests to make sure they are warranted,� Commissioner Brian Maynard said in a release. �Insurance rate increases are not specific to Kentucky; states across the nation are dealing with this issue.�

The department said some of the rate increases "appear to be attributed to the failure of the Kentucky Health Cooperative Inc.," a non-profit that was created under the reform law to provide more competition but then was not fully funded by Congress.


"The co-op went bankrupt and was placed into liquidation earlier this year, leaving other insurance companies to cover the more than 51,000 former co-op customers," the department noted. "Many of those customers were high-risk, and Kentucky�s remaining insurers appear to project that those high-risk customers will affect the risk pool." Anthem spokesman Mark Robinson told AP that the expectation of insuring co-op customers was responsible for its rate request.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. said recently that it would stop selling exchange policies in Kentucky, leaving many counties with only one insurer on the exchange. The only company that seeks to sell individual policies statewide is Anthem. It will be the only choice on the exchange in 54 counties.

However, Indianapolis-based Golden Rule Insurance Co., a United subsidiary, will sell "in all counties, off the exchange," the department said. Golden Rule, which still won't sell exchange policies, is seeking a rate increase of 65 percent.

Anthem, Aetna and Baptist will also offer non-exchange policies. Aetna plans to sell in only 10 counties: Jefferson, Fayette, Kenton, Campbell, Boone, Oldham, Trimble, Henry, Owen and Madison. Baptist will sell in 38 counties off the exchange and 20 on the exchange. Humana will sell on the exchange in nine counties (Bourbon, Bullitt, Clark, Fayette, Jefferson, Jessamine, Oldham, Scott and Woodford) and off the exchange in nine (Boone, Bullitt, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Jefferson, Kenton, Oldham and Pendleton). CareSource will sell in 61 counties, all on the exchange.

Consumers in Fayette, Jefferson and Oldham counties will have five insurers to choose from on the exchange. Jessamine, Woodford, Bullitt, Henry, Madison and Trimble counties will have four. Thirteen counties will have three choices, and 44 will have two. An Excel spreadsheet listing the policies for each county is available at www.uky.edu/comminfostudies/irjci/Kyhealthinsbycounty2017.xlsx.

The filings are online at insurance.ky.gov/ratefil/default.aspx. Rates must be approved within 60 days of each filing, or no later than July 11.

The administration of Gov. Matt Bevin is dismantling the Kynect health-insurance exchange and will use the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov, as a portal for enrollment in exchange policies.