Community Benefit Standards for Nonprofit Health Plan Companies
Health Plan Community Benefit Study Opportunity for Public Comments
The 2008 Legislature required the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to conduct a study of community benefit standards for Minnesota nonprofit health plan companies (2008 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 358, Art. 5, Sec. 4, Subd. 3).
Specifically, MDH must make recommendations for community benefit reporting with a focus on supporting public health, improving the art and science of medical care, and the provision of financial assistance for Minnesotans to access ongoing coverage. The study is due to the Minnesota Legislature on January 15, 2009.
As required by the law, MDH is also soliciting public input on the following issues:
- What types of health plan activities should be considered community benefit?
Generally speaking, “community benefit” is a planned approach to identifying and addressing the needs of a community. Some examples of activities that could be included as community benefit are: community health education or health promotion; support for community efforts to measure and improve health care quality; support for research and education; support for efforts to reduce health disparities; financial support for the health care safety net; enrollment assistance for public insurance programs; and financial losses incurred through participation in government health insurance programs.
- What, if any, standards should be put in place for uniform reporting of community benefit?
The range of options could include no standards; establishing a set of uniform definitions and/or requiring health plans to publicly report community benefit; establishing specific priorities for community benefit activities; or requiring a specific level of community benefit (for example, as a percentage of premium revenue, net income, value of tax exemption received, or some other measure).
- What, if any, mechanisms should be in place to establish accountability for community benefit?
For example, the range of options for accountability mechanisms could include no explicit public accountability; public reporting; or administrative fines for failure to report. If specific levels of community benefit are required, the range of enforcement mechanisms could include penalties such as loss of license, loss of tax exemptions, or administrative fines.
If you would like to provide written comments on these issues, please send them by December 8, 2008 to:
Nitika Moibi
Health Economics Program
Minnesota Department of Health
P.O. Box 64882
Saint Paul, MN 55164-0882
All written comments that we receive by December 8, 2008 will be published in an appendix to the report to the Legislature.
For questions, please contact Nitika Moibi at (651) 201-5605 or nitika.moibi@state.mn.us.
