Two months before Highmark Inc. announced a deal to acquire West Penn Allegheny Health System for $475 million, the state’s largest health insurer advanced the financially troubled hospital network $25 million, documents made public today show.

The $25 million advance in April was in addition to $50 million Highmark gave West Penn Allegheny when the two organizations on June 28 announced their planned merger. West Penn Allegheny had disclosed the $25 million advance in a previous financial disclosure but only said that it came from “a commercial payor” and would “be used to offset future reimbursements from the commercial payor.”

The detail of the advance came to light in a new version of the acquisition agreement between Highmark and West Penn Allegheny that was filed in federal court today. A previous version of the agreement had many sections blacked-out as confidential business information. But U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab ruled the entire agreement had to be made public, with only a few exceptions.

The number of young adults lacking medical coverage has shrunk by 2.5 million since the new health care overhaul law took effect, according to a new analysis the Obama administration is to release Wednesday.

That drop is 2½ times as large as the drop indicated by previous government and private estimates from earlier this year, which showed about 1 million Americans ages 19-25 had gained coverage.

Administration officials said they now have more data. They say they’re also slicing the numbers more precisely than the government usually does, trying to pinpoint the impact of a popular provision in an otherwise politically divisive law.

Under the health overhaul, children can remain on their parents’health insurance plans until they turn 26, and families have flocked to sign up young adults making the transition to work in a challenging economic environment. But the fate of President Barack Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment remains uncertain, with the Supreme Court scheduled to hear a constitutional challenge next year, and Republican presidential candidates vowing to repeal it.

Find out more from the AP.

The state House debated a bill on Wednesday that would prohibit insurance coverage of abortions for low-income people under health insurance exchanges that the federal health care law would establish in 2014.

The House may consider the legislation for final passage next week, said Rep. Matt Baker, R-Wellsboro, chairman of the House Health and Human Services Committee.

The insurance exchanges would provide coverage for people now uninsured or those who can’t afford much insurance, including between 700,000 and 1 million people in the state, according to figures from the Pennsylvania Health Law Project.

The Supreme Court must uphold the health care law for the state exchanges to become a reality. Baker said state officials are debating exactly what the exchanges would look like and what they will do. Loosely defined, the exchanges are government-created marketplaces to make insurance more affordable.

The intent of the bill by Rep. Donna Oberlander, R-Clarion County, is to prevent coverage for most abortions under the exchanges because they will be supported with public money. She said her bill is consistent with existing state law that prevents public money to be used for abortions.

Read more at the Tribune-Review.

After months of study, the Corbett administration said Tuesday that it was moving forward with a key – and widely supported – option offered by the federal health-care overhaul: a state-run insurance exchange.

Exchanges have gained neither the high-profile status nor the derision aimed at other parts of President Obama’s program. But they are expected to transform the arduous process of buying health insurance for millions of people who get coverage individually or are covered by small businesses.

“It is akin to an Expedia-type function, where you go and you are looking for a particular trip and a hotel, and you can look at the different options and what you want to buy – and then you can make your choice and buy accordingly,” said Pamela Clarke, a vice president of the Delaware Valley Healthcare Council, an industry group. People without Internet access will also be able to take advantage of the exchange.

Besides being a one-stop shop for health insurance, the exchange will be the only place where many of the people who will be newly eligible for insurance under the law – those making between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level – can apply for the tax credits that are intended to make coverage affordable.

Continue reading more about health insurance exchange at Philly.com

It’s well known that people with insurance pay more for health care through cost shifting. Doctors and hospitals charge insurers more to compensate for the uninsured, who often don’t pay their full bill. That means higher insurance premiums and taxes for public insurance programs.

A new study finds that having high numbers of uninsured residents in a region also increases the odds that people with insurance will have trouble accessing treatment and will be less satisfied with the care they get.

“It doesn’t seem intuitive, but having a lot of uninsured people not only affects the pocketbook, but also affects the care that you get,” said José Escarce, a UCLA professor of medicine who conducted the research with Carole Roan Gresenz of Rand.

The study, published last month in the journal Medical Care, was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It builds on work led by Mark Pauly, a University of Pennsylvania health economist, but uses a broader database, Escarce said.

He and Gresenz found that privately insured, working-age people who lived in metro-

politan areas with lots of uninsured residents were less likely to have a usual provider of medical care or an office visit or medical expenditure in the past year. They were more likely to have had trouble getting care they needed and were less satisfied with their care.

Read more about health coverage from the Philadelphia Inquirer

The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a case concerning the 2010 health care overhaul law. The development, which came unexpectedly fast, makes it all but certain that the court will soon agree to hear one or more cases involving challenges to the law, with arguments by the spring and a decision by June, in time to land in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The Justice Department said the justices should hear its appeal of a decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, that struck down the centerpiece of the law by a 2-to-1 vote.

“The department has consistently and successfully defended this law in several courts of appeals, and only the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “We believe the question is appropriate for review by the Supreme Court.

“Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation, such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed,” the statement continued.  “We believe the challenges to the Affordable Care Act — like the one in the 11th Circuit — will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.”

On Monday, the administration announced that it would not seek review from the full 11th Circuit. Its Supreme Court petition was not due until November.

Read more at the NYT.

Major health insurance companies have been charging sharply higher premiums this year, outstripping any growth in workers’ wages and creating more uncertainty for the Obama administration and employers who are struggling to drive down an unrelenting rise in medical costs.

A study released on Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research group, showed that the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011 — 9 percent higher than in the previous year. And even higher premiums could be on the way, particularly in New York, where some companies are asking for double-digit increases for about 1.3 million New Yorkers in individual or small-group plans, setting up a battle with state regulators.

The higher premiums are particularly unwelcome at a time when the economy is sputtering and unemployment is hovering at about 9 percent. Many businesses cite the cost of coverage as a factor in their decision not to hire, and health insurance has become increasingly unaffordable for more Americans. The cost of family coverage has about doubled since 2001, compared with a 34 percent gain in wages.

Read more the NYT’s in-depth story on this issue.

During the first three months of this year, about 46.5 million Americans were uninsured at some point, and 34.2 million had been uninsured for at least 12 months, according to a national health insurance survey issued Wednesday.

President Obama’s plan to require individual Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, a key pillar of his health-care legislation, is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in Harrisburg.

U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner said in a 53-page opinion that the federal government’s power to regulate commerce did not give it the authority to compel individual citizens to purchase products against their will.

The lawsuit was filed by a married couple from Etters in York County against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, asking that the law be overturned. The couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman, 48, and Gregory Bachman, 56, said they dropped their health-care coverage because of the expense – more than their monthly mortgage payments.

The couple, who operate a bait-and-tackle and marine engine-repair shop, said they preferred to pay for their health care out of pocket.

“The nation undoubtedly faces a health-care crisis . . . and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant,” Conner said. “The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress’ efforts to remedy the ailing health-care and health-insurance markets must fit squarely within those powers.”

The case is one of several dozen lawsuits playing out in various jurisdictions challenging the constitutionality of Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, which seeks to provide health-insurance coverage to the 40-plus million Americans without insurance.

Check out the rest of the article to learn more, including the broader implications of this and similar lawsuits across the country.

The end of a government-funded subsidy that made it easier for the unemployed to continue their health insurance benefits will likely send thousands more into the ranks of the uninsured, experts said.

Coupled with the elimination of a last-resort health insurance program that left 40,000 Pennsylvanians scrambling for coverage, the end of the subsidy will likely put pressure on the region’s already-strained health care resources.

“Any time people have the potential to lose insurance, there’s the potential to impact” hospitals and other health care providers, said Roger Baumgarten, spokesman for the Hospital & Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania. “What that impact is, it’s too soon to tell.”

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, people who lost their jobs only had to pay 35 percent of their health insurance premiums under COBRA, a federal act allowing unemployed workers to retain health insurance coverage for up to 18 months.

For more information, read more from the Citizens Voice