The Goal of the Federally-Funded Exchanges
The Affordable Act Care that advanced the introduction of state-owned and federally-funded exchanges aims at an improvement of the health services quality. Thus, the programs of exchanges promote the usage of highly affordable and transparent health insurance coverage models in the USA (Bachrach and Boozang 11).
The innovation created space for a comparable insurance commutation. The Act outlined the introduction of three basic types of exchanges, which regulate the state coverage relations, the federal-facilitated insurances as well as the partnerships with them.
The primary objective of the federal-funded exchanges can be revealed through the performance of several insurance functions that stipulate the efficient insurance politics. These are financial management, consumer assistance, plan management as well as eligibility and enrollment (“Federally-Facilitated Exchanges” par. 6).
The CMS Intention: Matching Federally-Funded Exchanges to Clients’ Needs
The strategic plan that was adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medical Service (CMS) encompassed a number of hypotheses about the future effects of the federally-funded exchanges. Thus, the CMS suggested that all the U.S. states would run an affordable insurance policy in future. Specifically, it was claimed that the usage of FFE could help every customer in processing affordable coverage.
Moreover, the service representatives argued that a competitiveness of federally-funded exchanges would ensure market parity standards. Finally, the CMS hypothesized that an innovation could promote a complex involvement of stakeholders and separate federal states into the procedure of insurance coverage decision-making (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 4).
Therefore, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medical Service, the promotion of FFT would match the needs of the customers and reach the desired effects through a support of health benefit standards, network adequacy, and marketing oversight.
Federally-Facilitated Exchange Management
The Affordable Act Care rules offer a Medicaid-driven plan of the efficient FFE management. Thus, it is suggested that the regulations of federally-facilitated exchanges have to comply with the requirements of a single statement, which ensures an equal distribution of the policy’s benefits. However, the recent reports state that the outcomes of FFE functioning yields contrastive results in different states of the USA.
Specifically, the commercial insurers in Colorado do not experience highly competitive practices. Therefore, there remains little space for the promotion of Medicaid management (Holahan et al. 12). The data proves that the CMS organs did not establish the clear know-how management guidelines initially.
Nevertheless, the services representatives proceed to work on the elaboration of Medicaid management systems and hypothesize that the FFE would attract 12 million beneficiaries in the next ten years (Hutchins, Samuels and Lively 73).
FFE Implementation Resources
The process of federal-funded exchanges implementation presupposes the existence of multiple resources such as funds, personnel, information technologies, and human resources management. According to the CMS accountancy reports, the service has initially allocated a $75 million investment for the coverage utilization procedure.
Though a number of financial resources are sufficient for the complete FFE support, the individual state governments have to conduct an efficient appropriation so that to materialize the money (Thorpe and Weiser 5). Concerning the personnel management effectiveness, it is highly dependable on a state.
Therefore, some states develop a strong network of insurance programming specialists while the others rely on the electrification of coverage control devices. Finally, the information technologies aspect encompasses digital medical databases and accounts for a successful FFE implementation.
Work Cited
Bachrach, Deborah and Patricia Boozang. “Federally-Facilitated Exchanges and the Continuum of State Options.” National Academy of Social Insurance 13.1 (2011): 1-44. Print.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. General Guidance on Federally-Facilitated Exchanges. DEST no. 6734.GHTA01A. Columbia: Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, 2002. Print.
Federally-Facilitated Exchanges. 2013. Web.
Holahan, John, Rebecca Peters, Kevin Lucia and Christine Monahan. “Cross-Cutting Issues: Insurer Participation and Competition in Health Insurance Exchanges: Early Indications from Selected States.” Urban Institute 12.1 (2013): 1-15. Print.
Hutchins, Valerie, Marc Samuels and Angela Lively. “Analyzing the Affordable Care Act: Essential Health Benefits and Implications for Oncology.” Journal of Oncology Practice 9.2 (2013): 73-77. Print.
Thorpe, Jane and Chris Weiser. “Medicare Quality Measurement and Reporting Programs.” Health Care Quality 11.4 (2011): 5-8. Print.