In 45 states, insurance carriers are allowed to reject applications for individual health insurance if the applicant has a preexisting medical condition. If a child of the applicant has a preexisting condition, the child cannot be denied individual health insurance if they are under the age of 19.  

Effective September 23, 2010, the health reform bill prohibits group health insurance plans from imposing lifetime limits on essential health benefits.  However, plans may impose certain annual limits on essential health benefits until January 1st, 2014.  This new requirement applies to plans with effective dates of coverage on September 23, 2010 or later. 

 

Effective January 1, 2013, a maximum election limit will be placed on the amount an employee can contribute to a health Flexible Spending Account (FSA). 

The maximum election limit will be $2,500 per participant.  It is important to note that this limit only applies to pre-tax contribution by an single employee (i.e. A husband and wife may each elect $2,500 if they participate in separate FSA plans).  Similarly, an employers may make contributions to an FSA above and beyond the $2,500 limit.

Beginning in 2014, the maximum election limit will be indexed to the CPI.

The term "essential health benefits" refers to the minimum health insurance coverage an employer with 50 or more full time equivalent employees must make available to avoid paying the employer penalty under the new health reform bill.

(Effective January 1st, 2014) In order to avoid paying the maximum penalty, the employer must offer each employee the ability to enroll in to essential health benefits through an eligible employer-sponsored plan, which is:

1. any plan or coverage offered in the small or large group market within a State (including small business exchanges),
2. coverage under a grandfathered health plan, or
3. a qualified governmental plan.

According to article today in the New York Times, England Plans to Decentralize its Health Care System. The details of the plan are not final. However, the goal of the plan is to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized government agency to doctors at the local level. 

According to Sarah Lyall, under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

Click here to view a white paper outlining the plan.

In your opinion, which country is moving in the "right" direction -- England, or the United States?