Fixing The Obamacare ‘Glitch’ That Pushed One Couple To Divorce

Fixing the Obamacare 'glitch' that pushed one couple to divorce | WYSO

Source: Iowa Public Radio, by Dan Gorenstein and Ryan Levi

The scene seems straight out of a movie: A young couple stands solemnly before the judge. They’ve been married just a year, and they’re here – for the second time – to ask for a divorce.

A month ago, the same judge gave them a hard time, then said no. He still thinks there is something fishy about their request.

And he’s right. The young people want to be together. But the only way they can afford that is to legally split up.

It isn’t about love. It’s not about employment or family pressure. It’s about health care.

Liana Wolk and Owen Marshall are caught in an Affordable Care Act loophole.

Health policy wonks call it the “family glitch,” and every year it keeps an estimated 5 million people ineligible for federally subsidized health insurance, mostly women and kids. This April, the Biden administration proposed a rule change that would allow people stuck in the “glitch” to qualify for the subsidies.

The family glitch shocked Wolk and Marshall. The couple live in Portland, Maine, where Marshall is a musician. Shortly after their 2019 wedding, Wolk landed a full-time job teaching English as a second language.

She was thrilled that it came with health insurance. But when Wolk called to sign them up, she was told it would cost more than $16,000 a year in premiums. That was at least 20 percent of their income.

The two decided Wolk would enroll in an individual plan, running $1,500 a year in premiums, and Marshall would stay on the ACA exchange.

“I was like, phew, this safety net’s here. I can just go back to this,” Marshall said.

When Wolk called to re-enroll her husband in an ACA plan, the operator said he no longer qualified for federal assistance.

Wolk dug into the research. Then one night, three months into their marriage, the puzzle pieces started coming together.

“Oh, my God, this is what is going on,” Wolk recalled saying. “We fit into this category.”

That category was the family glitch.

Here’s how the loophole works:

When Wolk was offered an individual plan through work that cost less than 9.6 percent of their family income, that automatically disqualified her spouse from federal subsidies, no matter the price of a family plan. Going from Obamacare with subsidies to Obamacare without subsidies, Marshall’s premiums jumped from $40 a month to more than $400.

“We’re just blowing through this money for no reason other than the stupid piece of paper that says we’re married,” Marshall said. “It was just so frustrating and demoralizing and dehumanizing.”

Even their skeptical judge agreed and granted them a divorce.

“We got home, I immediately called healthcare.gov and reported I had a divorce, and my plan dropped back down to $40. Immediately,” Marshall said.

Some of the 5 million people caught in this predicament have decided to go without health insurance. Others have gone uninsured but purchased plans for their kids.

Katie Keith has tracked the family glitch saga for years and talked with the Biden administration about fixing the glitch. She is the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

“The Obama administration’s IRS said, we think our hands are tied. Whatever the employee is offered – that’s going to extend to the whole family. We’re not going to look at the cost of family coverage at all when we determine whether you’re eligible,” Keith explained.

Politics played a role. A more generous policy would increase the ACA’s price tag. Plus the administration wanted to avoid taking any step that seemed to undermine employer-based coverage.

If the Biden administration’s new rule is finalized, family members could get federal subsidies to buy ACA coverage if their work-based family plan costs more than about 10 percent of their family income.

The White House estimates up to 1 million people would get cheaper coverage and 200,000 would get insurance.

Keith lists three reasons why so few people currently stuck in the glitch would benefit: It could actually be cheaper to stick with a family plan and not pay two premiums or two deductibles. Some families won’t want to deal with the hassle of having different family members on different plans. And some people might not even know this is an option.

It’s too early to know who stands to benefit, but multiple estimates suggest lower-income workers; people working in agriculture, mining and the service industries; and people who work for companies with fewer than 200 employees could have the most to gain.

Researchers estimate a family of four making $53,000 a year could save anywhere from around $2,300 to $4,100 in premiums a year, depending in part on whether Congress extends expanded ACA subsidies from the American Rescue Plan Act.

Critics point to the proposal’s price tag, noting a 2020 Congressional Budget Office estimate that extra subsidies would cost $45 billion over 10 years and replace private spending on health insurance with government spending.

“I think there are some people who would want the Biden administration to go even further and allow the employee to come into the marketplace with their family,” Keith said. “At the same time, I think this is the most significant thing that the Biden administration could do on its own to extend affordable coverage.

Final comments on the proposed rule are due June 6. If the Biden administration finalizes the rule change, it would go into effect for the 2023 plan year.

As for Liana Wolk and Owen Marshall, they are still divorced, but things are going well. They’re expecting their first child in July.

They’re happy there are efforts to fix the glitch so other people won’t have to do what they did. Wolk said maybe they’ll get married again some day. Or maybe they won’t.

Biden Admin Plots To Fix Obamacare’s ‘Family Glitch,’ Expand Coverage

About That ObamaCare 'Glitch' - WSJ

Source: Politico, by Adam Cancryn

The Biden administration is planning on Tuesday to propose a long-sought change to the Affordable Care Act aimed at lowering health insurance costs for millions of Americans, four people with knowledge of the matter told POLITICO.

The new policy is designed to close a loophole in the ACA known as the “family glitch” that’s prevented an estimated 5 million people from qualifying for subsidized health plans — even when they can’t find affordable coverage elsewhere.

Biden administration officials are expected to unveil the proposed regulation ahead of a celebration of the landmark 2010 health law that will also mark former President Barack Obama’s return to the White House for the first time since he left office.

Obama, alongside President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, is slated to tout the ACA’s coverage gains and the administration’s broader efforts to slash health costs.

In its rollout on Tuesday, the administration will highlight its new bid to fix the family glitch as the largest administrative action to expand ACA coverage since the law’s enactment, one person with knowledge of the matter said. Still, the proposed regulation could take months to finalize.

Democrats last year also expanded ACA subsidy eligibility as part of the passage of the American Rescue Plan, and enrollment through the law’s insurance exchanges reached 14.5 million last year, a record high. Those expanded subsidies are due to expire later this year, raising concerns within the party about the potential for millions of people to get hit with higher health costs right around the midterm elections.

The White House declined to comment.

Democrats and health advocacy groups have long pushed for a fix to the family glitch, which locked certain Americans out of subsidized coverage due to the complex way the federal government determines eligibility for family members of workers who have access to employer-based health plans.

Under the ACA, people can qualify for subsidized health insurance if the cost of their employer-based coverage rises above a set percentage of their household income.

But the Obama administration originally interpreted that provision as applying to the premium charged to one individual — even if that person’s spouse and children would be covered under the plan, driving up its overall cost.

Health law experts have since argued that the statute could be reinterpreted to incorporate the added cost of additional family members. The administration began work last year on changes to the law, resulting in the proposed rule that cleared OMB’s regulatory review in late March.

The vast majority of people affected by the glitch would pay less for ACA coverage than their employer-based plan if the loophole were closed, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates.

“Fixing the family glitch is the most consequential thing they can do without Congress to improve the affordability of ACA coverage,” said Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy.

Does Aetna Exit Signal Deeper ACA Problems?

open_enrollment

San Diego Union-Tribune
The insurance giant Aetna will will stop offering Obamacare health plans in 11 of 15 states, citing $200 million in losses this year and more than $400 million since 2014. The announcement, made Monday night, was the latest blow to the Affordable Care Act, which had already suffered the departure of top-five insurers Humana and UnitedHealthcare and has seen double-digit premium increases for many of the carriers that will continue to sell through health exchanges such as Covered California next year. In general, carriers have said too many sick patients are the main reason they’re dropping out of exchanges or raising rates. With not enough young and healthy enrollees to balance out the claims ledgers, the three companies that are pulling out or down scaling said they have lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

So do these developments mark the beginning of the doomsday scenario for Obamacare? Before the law’s main insurance provision took effect in 2014, many experts predicted that guaranteeing coverage to all consumers regardless of their pre-existing medical conditions would eventually create “sick” insurance risk pools that could not cover their costs without large premium increases each year.

The experts disagree on whether the latest pullbacks and significant pricing hikes, floating in a sea of election-year politics, signal that the nation’s health insurance exchanges have reached a terrible tipping point or are simply seeking a new state of equilibrium.

Gary Claxton, director of the nonprofit research group Health Care Marketplace Project at Kaiser Family Foundation, takes a middle position. He said the currently available facts can be interpreted either way, and that means Obamacare’s upcoming open-enrollment period — its fourth annual — is critical. It will all come down to whether the number of enrollees in Obamacare plans continues to grow, he said. “We won’t know until the next open enrollment, are we still moving forward or are we stalled or moving backward?” Claxton said. ” If the market grows, then I think many insurers will find a way to be part of it… The next couple of months are a moment of truth.”

Just how bad the problem is depends on who you ask. UnitedHealthcare said in April that it expects to lose $650 million this year because the cost of its Obamacare policies has exceeded revenue generated from premiums. Then late Monday brought Aetna’s announcement of its deficits. While its book of business includes insurance plans sold outside of Obamacare exchanges as well, all plans on the individual market (not employer-based policies) have been affected by the Affordable Care Act’s edict to take all comers regardless of their health status.

This picture of unprofitability from some of the nation’s largest insurers contrasts with an announcement last week from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that said per-member claims were flat from 2014 to 2015 for exchange enrollees, compared with a 3 percent increase for the broader health insurance market.

The federal government gets its data from the Affordable Care Act’s reinsurance and risk adjustment programs, which have collected broad information on all claims in order to reimburse programs that experienced higher-than-average patient expenses. The reinsurance program will go away next year and many organizations, including Covered California, have said insurers are announcing double-digit premium increases for next year to compensate for this change. Neither the insurance companies nor CMS has released full data sets on Obamacare claims, making it difficult for analysts to reconcile these seemingly contrasting pictures about the financial state of health exchanges.

Brian Blase, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, a conservative think tank located at George Mason University in Virginia, said he believes insurers’ reported losses and their decisions to largely leave the exchanges have been brewing since 2014, the first year exchange policies took full effect. A recent analysis of 174 health plans operating in 2014 showed that premiums would have had to be 24 percent higher than they were in 2014 to cover costs, but that the disparity was erased by the government’s reinsurance program, according to the Mercatus study.

When asked why the recent CMS study indicates a very different scenario, Blase was blunt. “I think they did some gymnastics on how they counted or discounted claims. It is inconsistent with everything else I’ve seen and, frankly, I think that their analysis is inaccurate,” Blase said. He said the current negative pattern will likely deepen, eventually leading to repeal or significant modification of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance regulations. “You’re going to have rising premiums and lower choice. I think the political pressure next year to make changes will be significant,” Blase said. But others such as Sara Collins, vice president for health care coverage and access at The Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that supports independent research on health care practice and policy, don’t see dire signs from the latest insurance developments. She noted that major carriers including Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente are not pulling out of exchanges. There is evidence, Collins added, that insurance risk pools tend to be healthier when they’re in larger states such as California. Long-term sustainability, especially where premiums are concerns, appears to be a function of size, which in turn lures multiple carriers who compete with each other for business. Collins said this means the estimated 1,000 U.S. counties with only one insurance carrier are likely to see more significant upward pressure on premiums in coming years, a situation that does, as Blase asserts, seem to suggest the federal government needing to step in. Ideas for intervention range from creating a “public option” similar to Medicare or special high-risk insurance pools to subsidize insurance to cover people with the most expensive medical needs.

Overall, though, Collins said the current information appears to indicate that Obamacare markets are maturing rather than dying. “It’s not surprising that we’re seeing some shake-up in the marketplace this year. There are going to be winners and losers like any competitive market you can think of. Some will compete and gain market share, others won’t,” she said. Additional information on the changes the Affordable Care Act has wrought in California will be forthcoming. The Kaiser Family Foundation is scheduled to release the fourth and final installment of its California health survey on Friday. The survey has tracked the effects of the law across the state since summer 2013. (c)2016 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit The San Diego Union-Tribune atwww.sandiegouniontribune.com.

Study: Premiums drive consumer selections in ACA marketplaces

Consumers purchasing coverage from Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces are gravitating toward the cheapest plans, and healthy consumers in particular are shopping for the lowest prices, while those selecting higher-cost plans that tend to allow more provider choice have been sicker than anticipated. A federal analysis shows two-thirds of American consumers bought the lowest- or second-lowest-cost coverage in each tier in 2014, and about 50% purchased the cheapest plans last year.

The New York Times (free-article access for SmartBrief readers) (8/12)

DOJ Fights Mergers

by Dr. Merrill Matthews

Many health policy experts warned that the Affordable Care Act would lead to massive consolidation in the health care industry, including hospitals, physicians’ practices, and especially health insurers. Now the Justice Department is pushing back by opposing the mergers of four large health insurers—Aetna with Humana and Anthem with Cigna. The real question is whether the insurers will continue to sell in the exchanges if they aren’t allowed to merge?

The Obama administration says that the mergers would reduce competition. Attorney General Loretta Lynch explained, “If allowed to proceed, these mergers would fundamentally reshape the health insurance industry.” That’s rich, since nothing has reshaped the health insurance industry more than Obamacare—and by design.

But government antitrust litigation is almost always about politics rather than economics. And that’s why free market advocates tend to be skeptical of most government antitrust efforts; companies, not the government, are in the best position to judge whether a merger would be beneficial.

And politics is certainly at work in this instance. President Obama promised the country that his health care legislation would increase competition and lower health insurance premiums. Now that just the opposite is happening, his administration is trying to limit the fallout and appear to be fighting for the consumer. But blocking the mergers will likely hurt consumers and competition.

Health insures are fleeing the Obamacare exchanges because of financial losses. A recent McKinsey & Co. survey found that health insurers selling in the individual market—where individuals buy their own coverage, usually through Obamacare exchanges—lost $2.7 billion in 2014. Those loses only compounded in 2015. The Hill reports that Humana “is pulling out of Obamacare plans in all but a handful of states after a year of nearly $1 billion in losses.”

Aetna said it lost about $140 million on the individual market in 2015. The Texas Blues Cross parent company, which controls Blues plans in five states, lost a reported $2 billion—$720 million just in Texas.

Oscar, a start-up health insurer that was supposed to bring new thinking to the individual health insurance market lost $105 million on Obamacare exchanges in 2015—and that was in just two states, New York and New Jersey.

UnitedHealthcare, the largest health insurer, reported last January that it lost $720 million in 2015 selling individual health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. And about $1 billion when 2014 and 2015 were combined. And 16 of the 23 nonprofit Obamacare co-ops—which were the left’s consolation price for not getting their “public option”—have gone under, with more collapses on the way.

The left has long wanted to “take the profits out of health care,” and Obamacare seems to be doing exactly that. Obama officials dismiss the health insurer losses, claiming that many of the insurers are still profitable. But that’s because health insurers often have several lines of business, some of which may be profitable even as they lose hundreds of millions of dollars selling in Obamacare exchanges. No responsible board of directors will let such losses continue indefinitely. Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation has been quoted as saying, “Something has to give. Either insurers will drop out or insurers will raise premiums.” And that’s exactly what we’re seeing. Nationwide, there was a 12% decline in plans in 2016 as compared to 2015, and that includes a 40% decline in PPO plans. There will be even more exits in 2017. Prior to Obamacare there were 18 insurers offering individual coverage in Kansas. Today there are three. The Obama administration initially praised health insurance competition in Maricopa County, Arizona. This year there were eight plans available on the Obamacare exchange; next year there will only be four—unless Aetna drops out, too. And insurers that choose to remain are increasing premiums. Texas Blue Cross has requested an increase of up to 60% for its 2017 premiums, and Arizona Blue Cross requested a 65% increase.

We know Humana, without the merger, is pulling out. Aetna claimed for months it would remain in the Obamacare exchanges, but is now saying it may scale back. And Anthem announced recently that it will only expand into other exchanges if it’s Cigna merger goes through. In other words, the Obama administration’s efforts to keep four insurers from becoming two may mean that only one or none will continue selling on the Obamacare exchanges.

Expect to see even fewer insurers participating and higher premiums as financial losses increase, especially if the Obama administration continues its efforts to stop money-losing insurers from merging. Policyholders will likely be receiving the notice that their premiums are rising or policy is being canceled in September or October—just before the election.

Merrill Mathews is a resident scholar with he Institute for Policy Innovation at ipi.org.

Employer Sponsored Insurance Rate Remains Stable

Since 2009, employer-sponsored insurance has been on the decline in California. A key question around the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was whether the reforms would further erode employer-sponsored insurance coverage. A recent survey by the California HealthCare Foundation finds that employer-sponsored insurance in the state has remained stable from 2013 to 2015. Worker eligibility for employer-sponsored insurance also remained stable, and even increased among some groups. However, the percentage of eligible workers who chose to enroll in employer-sponsored insurance declined from 86.4% in 2013 to 80.2% in 2015, bringing California closer to the national average take-up rate of 79%. This decline could be caused by the availability of alternative coverage options through Medi-Cal and Covered California.

Health Plan Offer Rates Since the ACA

A study by the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI) reveals that large employers have had steady health insurance offer rates since passage of the ACA. In fact, 99% of employers with 1,000 or more workers offer heath insurance as do 93% to 95% of employers with 100 to 999 workers. However, offer rates have been falling since 2009 for employers with fewer than 10 workers, from 36% in 2008 to 23% in 2015. Offer rates for employers with 10 to 24 workers went from 66% in 2008 to 49% in 2015. Offer rates for employers with 25 to 99 workers went from 81% in 2008 to 74% in 2015.

HMOs Beat PPOs on Cost and Quality

HMO

California’s commercial HMOs outperform commercial PPOs on most clinical quality measures. They also consistently provide less costly care. The average yearly cost is $4,245 per HMO enrollee versus $4,455 per PPO enrollee, according to the California Regional Health Care Cost & Quality Atlas. The report comes from the Integrated Healthcare Assn., the California Health Care Foundation, and the California Health and Human Services Agency. Differences in benefit designs don’t explain the cost variation since the total cost of care includes enrollee cost-sharing (deductibles and coinsurance) as well as insurance payments to providers.

HMOs may be performing better because they rely on integrated care networks, which generally accept capitation (fixed per-member, per-month payments). So they are accountable for the patients’ health and are generally rewarded for it, according to the report. So why is HMO enrollment declining? PPOs are often less costly for employers since they reduce premiums with higher enrollee cost-sharing, such as deductibles and coinsurance. But employers should look at the whole picture since HMOs produce superior results when you consider quality and the total cost of care, according to the report.

Quality of Care
California’s commercial HMOs perform better than their national counterparts on every clinical quality measure except asthma medication management. At the same time, California’s commercial PPOs perform worse than the national average on five of the six measures.

When Kaiser Permanente is removed from the analysis, the difference in clinical quality between HMOs and PPOs is cut by about half. Also, the performance difference on risk-adjusted total cost of care narrows substantially, but HMOs still outperform PPOs.

Quality is highest in Northern California, solid in Southern California, and weakest in Central California. The study reveals these regional differences is quality:

  • Northern California outperforms Central and Southern California on clinical quality.
  • Central California falls below the statewide average on key clinical measures for cancer, diabetes, and asthma.
  • The lowest performing region is the Eastern region 13, which includes Central California counties Mono, Inyo, and Imperial.
  • The highest performing region is Contra Costa County region in Northern California.
  • Clinical quality scores vary significantly on some measures. For example, 33% of commercial enrollees with diabetes in Alameda County region six have poorly controlled blood sugar, compared to 75% in the Eastern region 13.
  • In Southern California, San Diego County region 19 is the highest performing region, outperforming Northern California regions: San Mateo County region eight and San Francisco County region four.

If all commercially insured Californians got the same quality of care as top-performing regions, nearly 200,000 more people would have been screened for colorectal cancer and 50,000 more women would have been screened for breast cancer in 2013. If care is provided to all Californians at the same cost as in San Diego, the cost of care would decrease 10% for commercially enrolled people. Many factors contribute to regional performance, including socioeconomic characteristics and the availability of medical services.

Medicare Advantage
The quality and cost of care varies widely for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage. For example, in North Bay counties, 91% of women have gotten appropriate breast cancer screening compared to 70% in the Eastern region 13. The average annual per-enrollee total cost of care for Medicare Advantage enrollees ranges from $11,500 in San Diego County to $14,500 a year in Los Angeles region.

Cost of Care
Geographic variation in cost of care is dramatic—a difference of $1,800 in the average annual per-enrollee total cost of care between the most costly and least costly regions. With one exception, all Northern California regions have higher annual per-enrollee costs than the statewide commercial average of $4,300 while all Southern California regions fall below the statewide average. Central California regions show mixed results on cost. HMOs have a lower average total cost of care than do PPOs in 12 of the 18 regions. More tightly managed care in HMOs may contribute to a lower cost of care. Yet, inpatient bed days and readmission rates are similar for HMOs and PPOs. Emergency department visit rates are actually higher for HMOs. The statewide average annual per-enrollee cost of care for commercially insured Californians is $4,300. Kern County is the least costly HMO region. It’s $1,800 per enrollee, per year less than in Santa Clara County, which is the costliest HMO region. The least costly PPO region is Los Angeles at $2,400 less than San Francisco County, which is the costliest PPO region.

Response to DOJ’s Move To Block Mergers

The Justice Dept. is suing to block two proposed mergers between major health insurance companies, saying the deals violate antitrust laws. The lawsuits argue that a $37 billion merger between Humana and Aetna would lead to higher health-insurance prices, reduced benefits, less innovation, and worse service for over a million Americans. The DOJ also says that the $54 billion acquisition of Cigna by Anthem would be the largest merger in the history of the health insurance industry. California insurance commissioner Dave Jones said, “I urged the DOJ to prevent these health insurance mergers, which would result in a highly concentrated, less competitive health insurance market doing irreparable harm to consumers and businesses. During the public hearings I convened, I questioned executives from Anthem, Cigna, Aetna and Humana. None of the companies were able to substantiate their claims of savings associated with the mergers. Not one company executive was willing to commit to pass along alleged cost savings to consumers through lower premiums. Bigger is not better when it comes to health insurance mergers. History has shown that health insurance mergers result in higher prices, fewer choices, and lower quality of care.”

Dr. Merrill Matthews of The Institute for Policy Innovation said, “The Obama administration is attempting to block the Aetna-Humana and Anthem-Cigna mergers because it wants more competition, but if compounding financial losses force these companies to drop out of the exchanges, there won’t be any competition. Two larger health insurers are better than none. Health insurance company mergers started shortly after the ACA passed in order to survive the new environment of high costs and government regulations…For example, Arizona’s Maricopa County was once praised as a center of robust competition with eight insurance companies competing in its ACA exchange. But in just a few years, that number will drop to only three insurers, two of which are Aetna and Cigna. If Washington stifles these same companies’ attempts to stay afloat in the exchanges, Maricopa County and other areas could see only a single insurer available in its marketplace—if any at all…If the Department of Justice’s stonewalling is successful, those insurers will likely join many others and pull out of the Obamacare exchanges, leaving even less competition and higher prices. And that will force the administration to devise even more excuses for why health care costs are exploding.”

Dental Coverage Legislation

Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) introduced bipartisan legislation to clarify that people outside the public exchanges can have the same choices for dental coverage as people inside the public exchanges. The Aligning Children’s Dental Coverage Act (S. 3244) is a companion to HR 3463, sponsored by Representatives Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Diana DeGette (D-CO).

Inside the exchanges, parents can pick stand-alone dental benefits for their children as an option. About 99% of Americans select dental coverage separately from their medical coverage. But, outside the public exchanges, the Affordable Care Act isn’t clear on whether families can purchase stand-alone dental plans as part of the required pediatric dental care benefit. As a result, individuals, employers, and carriers are confused about what coverage options are available.

Jason Daughn, vice president of government relations for Delta Dental Plans Assn. said, “The Senate and House legislation offers a simple, but crucial solution to ensure that families across the nation continue to have the access they need and the choices they deserve in obtaining dental benefits. This is a common sense solution to an issue that could pose big problems to families and children across the nation.”

Last Updated 06/29/2022

Arch Apple Financial Services | Individual & Family Health Plans, Affordable Care California, Group Medical Insurance, California Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace, Medicare Supplements, HMO & PPO Health Care Plans, Long Term Care & Disability Insurance, Life Insurance, Dental Insurance, Vision Insurance, Employee Benefits, Affordable Care Act Assistance, Health Benefits Exchange, Buy Health Insurance, Health Care Reform Plans, Insurance Agency, Westminster, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Santa Ana, Tustin, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Long Beach, Orange, Tustin Foothills, Seal Beach, Anaheim, Newport Beach, Yorba Linda, Placentia, Brea, La Habra, Orange County CA

12312 Pentagon Street - Garden Grove, CA 92841-3327 - Tel: 714.638.0853 - 800.731.2590
Email:
Jay@ArchApple.com
Copyright @ 2015 - Website Design and Search Engine Optimization by Blitz Mogul