Tag Archives: Individual Mandate

Health Care’s New ‘Skinny Plans’: Winners and Losers

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.wsj.com/articles/health-cares-new-skinny-plans-winners-and-losers-1524654000

Image result for Health Care’s New ‘Skinny Plans’: Winners and Losers

 

Trump’s ‘skinny plans’ offer a cheaper alternative to the Affordable Care Act, but may have far less coverage.

 

New, more-limited health plans may draw consumers away from Affordable Care Act coverage and drive up prices on insurance sold in the health law’s marketplaces. These “skinny” plans offer lower premiums, making them an attractive alternative for young, healthy buyers.

New, more-limited health plans may draw consumers away from Affordable Care Act coverage and drive up prices on insurance sold in the health law’s marketplaces.

These “skinny” plans offer lower premiums, making them an attractive alternative for young, healthy buyers.

The politics of ACA rate hikes will be 2016 in reverse

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/politics-aca-rate-hikes-2016-in-reverse-63e401ef-03b7-4c11-a2b3-7410e1322c63.html

Protester holds sign saying "ACA Saves Lives"

We are about to see a replay of the 2016 election fight over premium increases, but this time in reverse. Last time, it was the Republicans hammering Democrats for the rate hikes. This time, it will be Democrats accusing Republicans of driving up premiums by sabotaging the Affordable Care Act.

What to watch: It’s going to be a balancing act for the Democrats. They can (and will) score political points by blaming Republicans for the coming premium increases, but another campaign debate about rising premiums could also undermine the ACA by focusing on its continuing problems.

In 2016, fear of rising premiums jumped the individual market, and a majority of Americans came to believe that rising premiums were somehow affecting them when only a small share of the public was impacted. That undermined the ACA and may have affected the election.

This time, Democrats will be on the offensive, buttressed by polling that shows the public sees Republicans and President Trump owning the ACA’s problems. Democrats are sure to call out Republicans and the administration for steps they have taken to undermine the law.

These include:

  • Eliminating the penalty for not buying insurance.
  • Failing to pass stabilization legislation.
  • Developing regulations to allow the sale of short-term policies and the wider sale of association health plans.

Taken together, these actions provide more options for the healthy, but will drive up rates overall.

Reality check: Last year, far more Americans came to believe they were affected by premiums increases than the relatively small number of unsubsidized people in the non-group market who were actually affected.

Our August 2017 tracking poll showed that fully 60% of the American people believed they were negatively affected by the premium increases, when in reality, just a sliver of the public — the unsubsidized people in the individual health insurance market — were actually affected.

The numbers that matter, per Kaiser Family Foundation estimates:

  • Affected: 6.7 million
  • Unaffected: 319 million

No doubt the broader public’s fears about rising premiums fueled cynicism about the ACA. Some political scientists say it contributed to the Republican victory in 2016.  In fact, premiums for most Americans with private coverage have been growing at a 3% clip, a historically moderate level.

The bottom line: As the midterms approach, Republicans’ first impulse may be to attack the law to rev up their base as they have done before. The tradeoff they face is that they now own the ACA in the eyes of the public, including the problem of rising premiums which they will have helped to create.

And Democrats now have a chance to score political points on the ACA for the first time — but the risk is a disproportionate public reaction, much like in 2016, that undermines the law they worked so hard to pass.

 

 

Five Worrisome Trends in Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/72001?xid=fb_o_

healthcare; insurance; drugs; drug companies; Government-run Insurance Program Sure to Backfire | iHaveNet.com

A reckoning is coming, outgoing BlueCross executive says.

A reckoning is coming to American healthcare, said Chester Burrell, outgoing CEO of the CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield health plan, here at the annual meeting of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Burrell, speaking on Friday, told the audience there are five things physicians should worry about, “because they worry me”:

1. The effects of the recently passed tax bill. “If the full effect of this tax cut is experienced, then the federal debt will go above 100% of GDP [gross domestic product] and will become the highest it’s been since World War II,” said Burrell. That may be OK while the economy is strong, “but we’ve got a huge problem if it ever turns and goes back into recession mode,” he said. “This will stimulate higher interest rates, and higher interest rates will crowd out funding in the federal government for initiatives that are needed,” including those in healthcare.

Burrell noted that 74 million people are currently covered by Medicaid, 60 million by Medicare, and 10 million by the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), while another 10 million people are getting federally subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) insurance exchanges. “What happens when interest’s demand on federal revenue starts to crowd out future investment in these government programs that provide healthcare for tens of millions of Americans?”

2. The increasing obesity problem. “Thirty percent of the U.S. population is obese; 70% of the total population are either obese or overweight,” said Burrell. “There is an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and coronary artery disease coming from those demographics, and Baby Boomers will see these things in full flower in the next 10 years as they move fully into Medicare.”

3. The “congealing” of the U.S. healthcare system. This is occurring in two ways, Burrell said. First, “you’ll see large integrated delivery systems [being] built around academic medical centers — very good quality care [but] 50%-100% more expensive than the community average.”

To see how this affects patients, take a family of four — a 40-year-old dad, 33-year-old mom, and two teenage kids — who are buying a health insurance policy from CareFirst via the ACA exchange, with no subsidy. “The cost for their premium and deductibles, copays, and coinsurance [would be] $33,000,” he said. But if all of the care were provided by academic medical centers? “$60,000,” he said. “What these big systems are doing is consolidating community hospitals and independent physician groups, and creating oligopolies.”

Another way the system is “congealing” is the emergence of specialty practices that are backed by private equity companies, said Burrell. “The largest urology group in our area was bought by a private equity firm. How do they make money? They increase fees. There is not an issue on quality but there is a profound issue on costs.”

4. The undermining of the private healthcare market. “Just recently, we have gotten rid of the individual mandate, and the [cost-sharing reduction] subsidies that were [expected to be] in the omnibus bill … were taken out of the bill,” he said. And state governments are now developing alternatives to the ACA such as short-term duration insurance policies — originally designed to last only 3 months but now being pushed up to a year, with the possibility of renewal — that don’t have to adhere to ACA coverage requirements, said Burrell.

5. The lackluster performance of new payment models. “Despite the innovation fostering under [Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation] programs — the whole idea was to create a series of initiatives that might show the wave of the future — ACOs [accountable care organizations] and the like don’t show the promise intended for them, and there is no new model one could say is demonstrably more successful,” he said.

“So beware — there’s a reckoning coming,” Burrell said. “Maybe change occurs only when there is a rip-roaring crisis; we’re coming to it.” Part of the issue is cost: “As carbon dioxide is to global warming, cost is to healthcare. We deal with it every day … We face a future where cutbacks in funding could dramatically affect accessibility of care.”

“Does that mean we move to move single-payer, some major repositioning?” he said. “I don’t know, but in 35 years in this field, I’ve never experienced a time quite like this … Be vigilant, be involved, be committed to serving these populations.”

Health Care and the 2018 Midterms, Attitudes Towards Proposed Changes to Medicaid

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll – February 2018: Health Care and the 2018 Midterms, Attitudes Towards Proposed Changes to Medicaid

 

KEY FINDINGS:
  • Medicaid continues to be seen favorably by a majority of the public (74 percent) and about half (52 percent) believe the Medicaid program is working well for most low-income people covered by the program.
  • When asked about proposed changes to the Medicaid program, attitudes are largely driven by party identification. A large majority of Democrats (84 percent) and most independents (64 percent) oppose lifetime limits for Medicaid benefits, while Republicans are more divided in their views with half (51 percent) believing Medicaid should only be available for a limited amount of time.

    Poll: Public split on whether adding work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries aims at reducing spending (41%) or lifting people out of poverty (33%) 

  • Party identification also drives views on what individuals believe is the main reason behind some states imposing Medicaid work requirements. A larger share of Democrats and independents believe the main reason for these work requirements is to reduce government spending (42 percent and 45 percent, respectively) than believe it is to help lift people out of poverty (26 percent and 31 percent). On the other hand, a similar share of Republicans say it is to reduce government spending (40 percent) as say it is to help lift people out of poverty (42 percent). Individuals living in states pursuing Medicaid work requirements are also divided on the main reason for these limits, even when controlling for party identification.

    54% of the public now holds favorable views of the Affordable Care Act – the highest share in more than 80 tracking polls 

  • The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a slight increase in the share of the public who say they have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), from 50 percent in January 2018 to 54 percent this month. This is the highest level of favorability of the ACA measured in more than 80 Kaiser Health Tracking Polls since 2010. This change is largely driven by independents, with more than half (55 percent) now saying they have a favorable opinion of the law compared to 48 percent last month. Large majorities (83 percent) of Democrats continue to view the law favorably (including six in ten who now say they hold a “very favorable” view, up from 48 percent last month) while nearly eight in ten Republicans (78 percent) view the law unfavorably (unchanged from last month).
  • The majority of the public are either unaware that the ACA’s individual mandate has been repealed (40 percent) or are aware that it has been repealed but incorrectly think the requirement is not in effect in 2018 (21 percent). Few (13 percent) are aware the requirement has been repealed but is still in effect for 2018.
  • More than twice as many voters mention health care costs (22 percent) as mention repealing/opposing the ACA (7 percent) as the top health care issue they most want to hear 2018 candidates discuss in their campaigns. Health care costs are the top issue mentioned by Democratic voters (16 percent) and independent voters (25 percent), as well as one of the top issues mentioned by Republican voters (22 percent), followed by repealing or opposing the ACA (17 percent).

2018 Midterm Elections

With still a few months until the midterm elections are in full swing, the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds health care costs as the top health care issue mentioned by voters when asked what they want to hear 2018 candidates discuss. When asked to say in their own words what health care issue they most want to hear the candidates talk about during their upcoming campaigns, one-fifth (22 percent) of registered voters mention health care costs. This is followed by a series of other health care issues, such as Medicare/senior concerns (8 percent), repealing or opposition to the Affordable Care Act (7 percent), improve how health care is delivered (7 percent), increasing access/decreasing the number of uninsured (6 percent), or a single-payer system (5 percent). Health care costs is the top issue mentioned by Democratic voters (16 percent) and independent voters (25 percent), as well as one of the top issues mentioned by Republican voters (22 percent), followed by repealing or opposing the ACA (17 percent).

Figure 1: Health Care Costs Are Top Health Care Issue Voters Want 2018 Candidates to Talk About During Their Campaigns

Battleground Voters

Health care costs are also the top issue mentioned by voters living where there are competitive House, Senate, or Governor races. One-fourth (23 percent) of voters in areas with competitive elections mention health care costs when asked what health care issue they most want to hear candidates talk about. Fewer mention other health care issues such as improve how health care is delivered (9 percent) or increasing access/decreasing the number of uninsured (6 percent).

2018 Midterm Election Analysis

As part of Kaiser Family Foundation’s effort to examine the role of health care in the 2018 midterm elections, throughout the year we will be tracking the views of voters – paying special attention to those living in states or congressional districts in which both parties have a viable path to win the election. This group, referred to in our analysis as “voters in battlegrounds” is defined by the 2018 Senate, House, and Governor ratings provided by The Cook Political Report. Congressional and Governor races categorized as “toss-up” were included in this group. A complete list of the states and congressional districts included in the comparison group is available in Appendix A.

The Affordable Care Act

This month’s Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a slight increase in the share of the public who say they have a favorable view of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). The share of the public who say they hold a favorable view of the law has increased to 54 percent (from 50 percent in January 2018) while 42 percent currently say they hold an unfavorable view. This is the highest level of favorability of the ACA measured in more than 80 Kaiser Health Tracking Polls since 2010.  This change is largely driven by independents, with more than half (55 percent) now saying they have a favorable opinion of the law compared to 48 percent last month. Large majorities (83 percent) of Democrats continue to view the law favorably (including six in ten who now say they hold a “very favorable” view, up from 48 percent last month) while nearly eight in ten Republicans (78 percent) view the law unfavorably (unchanged from last month).

Figure 2: More of the Public Hold a Favorable View of the ACA

Public Awareness of the Repeal of the ACA’s Individual Mandate

The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a slight uptick (from 36 percent in January 2018 to 41 percent this month) in the share of the public who are aware that the ACA’s requirement that nearly all individuals have health insurance or else pay a fine, known commonly as the individual mandate, has been repealed. Yet, misunderstandings persist. The majority of the public (61 percent) are either unaware that this requirement has been repealed (40 percent) or are aware that it has been repealed but incorrectly think the requirement is not in effect in 2018 (21 percent of total). Few (13 percent) are aware the requirement has been repealed but is still in effect for 2018.

Figure 3: Confusion Remains on the Status of the ACA’s Individual Mandate

Medicaid

In recent months, President Trump’s administration has supported state efforts to make changes to their Medicaid programs, the government health insurance and long-term care program for low-income adults and children. Seven in ten Americans say they have ever had a connection to the Medicaid program either directly through their own health insurance coverage (32 percent) or their child being covered by the program (9 percent), or indirectly through a friend or family member covered by the program (29 percent).

Figure 4: Seven in Ten Americans Say They Have Ever Had A Connection to Medicaid

Majority of the Public Holds Favorable Views of Medicaid and Thinks the Program is Working Well

Overall, the majority of the public (74 percent) holds favorable views of Medicaid, including four in ten who have a “very favorable” view. About one-fifth of the public (21 percent) hold unfavorable views of the program. Unlike attitudes towards the ACA, opinions towards Medicaid are not drastically different among partisans and majorities across parties report favorable views. However, a larger share of Republicans do hold unfavorable views (29 percent) compared to independents (21 percent) or Democrats (13 percent).

Figure 5: Large Shares Across Parties Say They Have a Favorable Opinion of Medicaid

In addition, more believe the program is working well than not working well for most low-income people covered by the program. This holds true across partisans with about half saying the Medicaid program is “working well” and about one-third saying it is “not working well.”

Figure 6: Larger Shares Say Medicaid Is Currently Working Well for Most Low-Income People Covered by the Program

Support for Medicaid Expansion in Non-Expansion States

One of the major changes brought on by the ACA was the option for states to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people. As of February 2018, 18 states have not expanded their Medicaid programs.

Figure 7: Status of Medicaid Expansion Among States

Among individuals living in states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs, most (56 percent) say they think their state should expand Medicaid to cover more low-income uninsured people while four in ten (37 percent) say their state should keep Medicaid as it is today. Slightly more than half of Republicans living in non-expansion states say their state should keep Medicaid as it is today (54 percent) while four in ten (39 percent) say their state should expand their Medicaid program. Majorities of Democrats (75 percent) and independents (57 percent) say their state should expand their Medicaid program.

Figure 8: Democrats and Independents Are More Likely to Want Their State to Expand Medicaid Than Republicans

Proposed Changes to Medicaid

SECTION 1115 WORK REQUIREMENT WAIVERS

In January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided new guidance for Section 1115 waivers, which would allow states to impose work requirements for individuals to be covered by Medicaid benefits. As of February 21, CMS has approved work requirement waivers in two states (KY and IN) and eight other states have pending requests.1 When asked what they think the reasoning is behind these proposed changes to Medicaid, a larger share of the public (41 percent) believe the main reason is to reduce government spending by limiting the number of people on the program than say the main reason is to help lift people out of poverty (33 percent). There are differences among demographic groups with a larger share of Democrats and independents believing the main reason is to reduce government spending, while Republicans are more divided with similar shares saying the main reason is to lift people out of poverty (42 percent) as reduce government spending (40 percent).

Figure 9: Republicans Are Divided on the Main Reason Behind the Trump Administration Permitting Work Requirements

There are also differences between individuals living in states that have either filed a Medicaid waiver for a work requirement or have had a waiver approved and those living in states that do not have Medicaid work requirement waivers pending or approved.2 Individuals living in states with pending or approved Medicaid work requirements are divided on whether the main reason for these limits is to lift people out of poverty (37 percent) or reduce government spending (36 percent). This holds true even when controlling for other demographic variables such as party identification and income that may influence beliefs.

Figure 10: Those in States with Medicaid Work Requirements Are Divided on the Main Reason Behind Them

SECTION 1115 LIFETIME LIMIT WAIVERS

In addition to work requirement waivers, five states are currently seeking waivers from the Trump administration to impose Medicaid coverage limits. These “lifetime limits” would cap Medicaid health care benefits for non-disabled adults. When asked how they think Medicaid should work, two-thirds of the public say Medicaid should be available to low-income people for as long as they qualify, without a time limit, while one-third say it should only be available to low-income people for a limited amount of time in order to provide temporary help. The vast majority of Democrats (84 percent) and most independents (64 percent) say Medicaid should be available without lifetime limits, while Republicans are divided with similar shares saying they favor time limits (51 percent) as saying they do not favor such limits (47 percent). Seven in ten (71 percent) of individuals who have ever had a connection to Medicaid say they do not support lifetime limits compared to three in ten (28 percent) who say it should only be available for a limited amount of time in order to provide temporary help.

Figure 11: Majorities of Democrats and Independents Say Medicaid Should Be Available Without a Time Limit; Republicans Are Divided

 

 

What to watch for in the individual health insurance market

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/usc-brookings-schaeffer-on-health-policy/2018/03/08/what-to-watch-for-in-the-individual-health-insurance-market/?utm_campaign=Economic%20Studies&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=61590808

Image result for What to watch for in the individual health insurance market

 

On Tuesday, March 6, the Brookings Institution’s Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy and the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy co-hosted an event examining where the individual health insurance market is today and where it is heading. The event featured an opening presentation followed by a panel discussion featuring speakers from a variety of perspectives. The discussion examined how the individual market has evolved since the implementation of the main Affordable Care Act (ACA) reforms in 2014, the likely impact of recent policy changes implemented by the Trump Administration and Congress, and how federal policy toward the market might evolve in years to come.

Here are highlights from each of the participants.

Fiedler’s opening presentation: An overview of recent individual market trends and policy changes

The event opened with a presentation by Matthew Fiedler, a fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Health Policy (slides available here). Fiedler started by showing that individual market enrollment grew significantly after implementation of the ACA’s reforms in 2014, but that individual market insurers also incurred significant losses. Those losses set the stage for a pricing correction in 2017, which he estimated returned premiums to a roughly sustainable position.

Fiedler then examined the implications of three significant policy changes under the Trump Administration: the end of cost-sharing reduction payments, the pending repeal of the individual mandate, and the proposed expansion of short-term, limited-duration plans. Fiedler argued that “the market will survive and will find a new equilibrium” because many enrollees in the ACA-compliant individual market are eligible for large subsidies that will make remaining in the market attractive.

Nevertheless, he concluded that repeal of the individual mandate and the expansion of short-term plans, will reduce the number of people covered, increase the number of people with lower-quality coverage, and reduce pooling of risk between healthier and sicker individuals. On the other hand, he argued that the Trump Administration’s decision to end cost-sharing reduction payments will have the unintended consequence of lowering premiums after subsidies for many enrollees and increasing federal spending.

Corlette: Short-term plans pose risks to consumers

A major topic for the panel discussion was the Trump Administration’s proposal to expand the definition of “short-term, limited duration” plans from a plan lasting less than 3 months (with no renewals permitted) to a plan lasting less than 12 months (with renewals permitted). Short-term plans are exempt from a broad range of federal regulatory requirements, including the ban on varying premiums based on health status and the ACA requirement to cover the so-called essential health benefits package.

Panelists noted that broader availability of short-term plans is likely to weaken the market for ACA-compliant plans since many healthier enrollees will migrate into the short-term market. Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University, argued that short-term plans pose significant risks not only to the market for ACA-compliant plans but also to consumers who buy them. These short-term plans are potentially harmful, she argued, because they “walk and talk a lot like traditional comprehensive health insurance” but many consumers will find themselves liable for “thousands of dollars of medical bills because these things simply don’t cover anything.”

Capretta: Recent policy changes are expanding state flexibility in beneficial ways

In discussing various policy changes implemented by the Trump Administration, James C. Capretta, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that many of these policy changes have the effect of increasing state flexibility. He argued that state flexibility could help illuminate the path forward for federal policy. “Given the stalemate at the national level, maybe we need a two or three-year period where a lot of states try a couple of different things,” he said. “If some states want to re-impose the individual mandate they can do so. If they want to impose continuous coverage penalties they can do so. They can restrict which plans are sold on the insurance market,” he said.

Patterson: What is the next national goal for health policy?

Panelists discussed their views on next steps for federal policymakers. Kevin Patterson, CEO of Connect for Health Colorado, said that policymakers need “to think about what we are going to challenge ourselves to actually deal with.” Patterson noted that the Affordable Care Act had a national goal of improving access to care. “But what’s the next national goal? Is there one?,” Patterson asked. Patterson identified reducing the underlying cost of care as a potential priority. Patterson noted that the “big bad insurance company” often gets blamed for high premiums, “but a lot of what they have to do is just reflect the cost that they’re seeing in what the provider networks are charging.”

Geraghty: Increasing competition among providers can reduce the cost of care

Following on Patterson’s comment, Geraghty highlighted the importance of increasing competition among health care providers if the goal is to reduce costs. “We as a country have not looked at competition on the delivery side,” he said. Geraghty noted that there were particular challenges in many rural markets.  “If you’re in a rural area and you’ve got one hospital and they bought up the physician groups around them, they now set the market and they set the price,” he explained. Geraghty argued that improvements in communications technology might make it possible to deliver more care remotely, which could facilitate increased competition in many markets with a small number of providers.

 

Back to the Health Policy Drawing Board

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Image result for Back to the Health Policy Drawing Board

The Affordable Care Act needs help. After scores of failed repeal attempts, Congress enacted legislation late last year that eliminated one of the law’s central features, the mandate requiring people to buy insurance.

Obamacare, as the Affordable Care Act is widely known, isn’t in imminent danger of collapse, but the mandate’s repeal poses a serious long-term threat.

To understand that threat and how it might be parried, it’s helpful to consider why the United States has relied so heavily on employer-provided insurance — and why it has not yet adopted a form of the universal coverage seen in most other countries.

First, some basics on private insurance: It works well only when many people, each with a low risk of loss, buy in. Most homeowners buy fire insurance, for example, and only a small fraction file claims annually. A modest premium can therefore cover large losses sustained by a few.

But because of what economists call the adverse-selection problem, this model can easily break down for private health insurance. People typically know more about their own health risks than insurers do, making those most at risk more likely to purchase insurance.

This drives premiums up, making insurance still less attractive to the healthiest people. That, in turn, causes many to drop out, producing the fabled “death spiral” in which only the least healthy people remain insured. But at that point, private health insurance may no longer be viable, because annual treatment costs for serious illnesses often exceed several hundred thousand dollars.

Most nations have solved this problem by adopting universal coverage financed by taxes. The United States probably would have followed this approach except for a historical anomaly during World War II. Fearing runaway inflation in tight labor markets, the American government imposed a cap on wages.

But the cap didn’t apply to fringe benefits, which employers quickly exploited as a recruiting tool. Employer health plans proved particularly attractive, since their cost was a deductible expense and they were not taxed. Before the war started, only 9 percent of workers had employer-provided insurance, but 63 percent had it by 1953.

To be eligible for favorable tax treatment, companies were required to make their plans available to all employees, which mitigated the adverse-selection problem. People would lose insurance if they lost their jobs, which inhibited labor mobility, but since employment relationships were relatively durable in the postwar years, this arrangement worked well enough.

But after peaking at almost 70 percent in the 1990s, employer coverage began declining in the face of stagnating wages and rising insurance costs. By 2010, only 56 percent of the nonelderly American population still had workplace health plans.

Even so, because more than 100 million Americans still had such plans and were reasonably satisfied with them, the Obama administration opted to build health reform atop the existing system. In addition to allowing people to keep their existing employer coverage, Obamacare expanded eligibility for Medicaid and established exchanges in which people without employer plans could buy insurance.

At the outset, Obamacare had three central features:

• Insurers could not charge higher prices to people with pre-existing conditions.

• Those without coverage had to pay a penalty to the government (the “mandate”).

• Low-income people would be eligible for subsidies.

The first two provisions were necessary to prevent the death spiral, and government couldn’t mandate insurance purchases without adding subsidies for the poor.

Despite a bumpy rollout and some frustrations over shrinking choices and rising prices at health care exchanges, Obamacare was working remarkably well by most important metrics. Program costs were much lower than expected, and the uninsured rate among nonelderly Americans fell sharply — from 18.2 percent in 2010 to only 10.3 percent in 2018.

This progress is now imperiled.

The mandate — by far the program’s least popular provision — was repealed as part of tax legislation passed in December 2017. And because economists predict that its absence will slowly rekindle the insurance death spiral, we’re forced back to the policy drawing board.

The most common response has been to call for a variant of the single-payer systems employed by most other countries, which promise dramatic reductions in health costs.

The United States spends far more on health care than any other nation, yet gets worse outcomes on most measures. In part this is because administrative and marketing expenses are much lower under single-payer plans. But by far the most important source of savings is that governments are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. Virtually every procedure, test, and drug costs substantially more here than elsewhere.

An American hospital stay, for example, costs more than twelve times as much as one in the Netherlands. The single-payer approach also sidesteps the thorny mandate objection by covering everyone out of tax revenue.

A June 2017 poll showed that 60 percent of Americans said the government should provide universal coverage, and support for single-payer insurance rose more than one-third since 2014.

Yet a move to a single-payer system faces the same hurdle that shaped Obamacare: Millions of Americans would resist any attempt to take their employer-provided plans away. And although single-payer health care would be far less costly overall, it would be paid for by taxes — the most visible form of sacrifice — rather than by the implicit levies that underwrite employer coverage.

From a purely economic standpoint, the increased tax burden is irrelevant. It’s a truism that making the economic pie larger necessarily makes it possible for everyone to get a larger slice than before. And because the gains from single-payer insurance would be so large, there must be ways to make everyone come out ahead, even in the short run.

The Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, for example, has proposed the introduction of Medicare Part E (Medicare for Everyone), which would allow anyone to buy into Medicare, regardless of age. The program’s budget would be supported in part by levies on employers that don’t offer insurance.

The cost savings inherent in this form of single-payer coverage would lead more and more firms to abandon their current plans voluntarily. Gradually, the age for standard Medicare eligibility also would fall until the entire population was covered by it. The Center for American Progress has now introduced a similar proposal.

It’s critical to realize that there are attractive paths forward. In no other wealthy country do we see people organize bake sales to help pay for a neighbor’s cancer care. We can avoid this national embarrassment without requiring painful sacrifices from anyone.

 

 

Obamacare insurers just had their best year ever — despite Trump

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/17/obamacare-insurers-2017-profit-analysis-422559

Flyers promoting Blue Cross Blue Shield are pictured. | AP Photo

A new POLITICO analysis finds many health plans turned a profit for the first time as GOP fumbled repeal.

Obamacare is no longer busting the bank for insurers.

After three years of financial bloodletting under the law — and despite constant repeal threats and efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle it — many of the remaining insurers made money on individual health plans for the first time last year, according to a POLITICO analysis of financial filings for 29 regional Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, often the dominant player in their markets.

The biggest reason for the improvement is simple: big premium spikes. The Blue plans increased premiums by more than 25 percent on average in 2017, meaning many insurers charged enough to cover their customers’ medical costs for the first time since the Affordable Care Act marketplaces launched in 2014 with robust coverage requirements.

“2017 was the first year we got our head above water in the individual market since the ACA passed,” said Steven Udvarhelyi, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana.

However, one good year won’t ease the trepidation many insurers feel as they start planning for 2019. After knocking out the law’s individual mandate and a subsidy program worth billions of dollars to insurers late last year, the Trump administration is soon expected to finalize rules making it easier to buy cheaper plans exempt from some Obamacare rules.

“I don’t think we’ve turned the corner,” said Kurt Kossen, president of retail markets at Health Care Service Corporation, which operates Blue plans in five states. The insurer lost $2.5 billion on its individual market business during Obamacare’s first three years, he noted. “One year of being able to make a profit out of four certainly is not a stable market,” he said.

“They understand the risks of the market better now than they did at the start of the ACA exchanges,” said Deep Banerjee, an analyst with Standard & Poor’s who has written extensively about the marketplaces.

The gains were particularly notable among some of the biggest insurers. Health Care Service Corporation spent 77.7 percent of premiums on medical claims, an improvement of 18.5 percentage points over the prior year. Similarly, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina saw its margin improve by just over 10 percentage points.

But not all insurers have figured out how to make money in the troubled markets, which have failed to attract enough young and healthy customers to function effectively in many states. Of the 29 insurers analyzed, eight plans spent more than 90 percent of premium revenues on medical costs last year, meaning they almost certainly lost money in the marketplaces.

The POLITICO analysis provides a snapshot of financial performance in the marketplaces in 2017, not a definitive portrait. Combined, the 29 Blue plans had 4.5 million individual market customers at the end of last year, accounting for about one-fifth of the total market for people who buy their own coverage.

The healthier balance sheets are a welcome development for insurers after three years of major Obamacare losses, estimated at more than $15 billion by McKinsey. That led many national insurers, including UnitedHealth Group and Aetna, to flee the law’s marketplaces, in some cases leaving Blue Cross Blue Shield plans as the only option for customers.

But their improved financial fortunes could also complicate efforts to convince Republican lawmakers to support an Obamacare stabilization package as part of the massive spending bill Congress is trying pass by March 23. Lawmakers are looking to add new funds to help insurers with especially sick customers and restore a subsidy program known as cost-sharing reductions that helps insurers pay medical bills for their low-income customers.

However, a dispute over abortion language is holding up the Obamacare package in Congress. And many conservatives are wary of providing more funding to prop up the marketplaces, deriding it as a bailout for insurance companies.

“The rates can stay low without these payments,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, regarding the cost-sharing reductions that President Donald Trump cut last fall.

Insurers argue that looking at financial performance over a single year is misleading, and they say they’ve been repeatedly blindsided by changes to the law. For instance, because of budgetary restraints Republicans demanded, insurers haven’t received an expected $12 billion from a program meant to help them cover particularly expensive customers. Dozens of insurers are now suing the federal government to recover payments.

“If you don’t want to stabilize the current market, what’s your solution?” Udvarhelyi said. “The fact that we’ve hung in there losing hundreds of millions of dollars is a testament to the fact that we do care, but we need responsible action on the part of policymakers right now.”

Patrick Conway, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, points out his company would have kept 2018 premiums flat if Trump hadn’t eliminated the cost-sharing subsidy. Instead, the insurer jacked up rates by an average of 13 percent to make up for the lost funding.

“We’re dedicated to having the lowest possible premiums for our customers, and market stabilization would help us have the lowest possible premiums,” Conway said. “I’ve been traveling around the state and people are really worried about the cost.”

As insurers start to crunch the numbers on 2019 premiums, they will have to account for uncertainty over congressional funding and recent steps taken by the Trump administration weakening Obamacare. The elimination of the requirement to purchase insurance, which takes effect in 2019, and the administration’s efforts to make it easier to sell cheaper, skinnier plans that don’t meet Obamacare’s coverage requirements, are likely to further destabilize the markets.

The insurers’ biggest concern is fewer healthy individuals will buy Obamacare plans, either going without coverage, since they’ll no longer face a fine next year, or buying a new cheaper plan that covers far less.

“These things will chip away at the market,” S&P’s Banerjee said. “It’s not going to get meaningfully worse, but it doesn’t get any better.”

Insurers are warning that they’ll again have to jack up rates in 2019 if Congress doesn’t take action to stabilize the markets. A study from California’s marketplace suggests premium spikes around the country are likely to range from 16 to 30 percent next year. That means many Obamacare customers could be facing sticker shock just weeks before heading to the polls.

Polling has consistently shown that Republicans will shoulder most of the blame for future problems in Obamacare, since they’re fully in charge of the federal government. That could spur them to begrudgingly take action to tamp down premium increases, despite their disdain for the health care law.

“I think the people in charge, whether it’s fair or not, will probably [get the blame],” said Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. “Everybody’s prices are going up. We’re going to have to figure out some way to improve it.”

 

 

Americans’ Views on Health Insurance at the End of a Turbulent Year

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2018/mar/americans-views-health-insurance-turbulent-year?omnicid=EALERT1363672&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

 

The Affordable Care Act’s 2018 open enrollment period came at the end of a turbulent year in health care. The Trump administration took several steps to weaken the ACA’s insurance marketplaces. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans engaged in a nine-month effort to repeal and replace the law’s coverage expansions and roll back Medicaid.

Nevertheless, 11.8 million people had selected plans through the marketplaces by the end of January, about 3.7 percent fewer than the prior year.1 There was an overall increase in enrollment this year in states that run their own marketplaces and a decrease in those states that rely on the federal marketplace.

To gauge the perspectives of Americans on the marketplaces, Medicaid, and other health insurance issues, the Commonwealth Fund Affordable Care Act Tracking Survey interviewed a random, nationally representative sample of 2,410 adults ages 19 to 64 between November 2 and December 27, 2017, including 541 people who have marketplace or Medicaid coverage. The findings are compared to prior ACA tracking surveys, the most recent of which was fielded between March and June 2017. The survey research firm SSRS conducted the survey, which has an overall margin of error is +/– 2.7 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. See How We Conducted This Study to learn more about the survey methods.

HIGHLIGHTS

Adults were asked about:

  • INSURANCE COVERAGE 14 percent of working age adults were uninsured at the end of 2017, unchanged from March–June 2017.
  • AWARENESS OF THE MARKETPLACES 35 percent of uninsured adults were not aware of the marketplaces.
  • REASONS FOR NOT GETTING COVERED Among uninsured adults who were aware of the marketplaces but did not plan to visit them, 71 percent said they didn’t think they could afford health insurance, while 23 percent thought the ACA was going to be repealed.
  • CONFIDENCE ABOUT STAYING COVERED About three in 10 people with marketplace coverage or Medicaid said they were not confident they would be able to keep their coverage in the future. Of those, 47 percent said they felt this way because either the Trump administration would not carry out the law (32%) or Congress would repeal it (15%).
  • SHOULD AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE BE A RIGHT? 92 percent of working-age adults think that all Americans should have the right to affordable health care, including 99 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans, and 92 percent of independents.

A Big Divergence Is Coming in Health Care Among States

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

 

Little by little, the Trump administration is dismantling elements of the Affordable Care Act and creating a health care system that looks more like the one that preceded it. But some states don’t want to go back and are working to build it back up.

Congress and the Trump administration have reduced Obamacare outreach, weakened benefit requirements, repealed the unpopular individual insurance mandate and broadened opportunities for insurers to offer inexpensive but skimpy plans to more customers.

Last week, the administration released its latest proposal along these lines, by changing the definition of so-called short-term plans. These plans don’t need to follow any of the Obamacare requirements, including popular rules that plans include a standard set of benefits, or cover people with pre-existing conditions. If the rule becomes final, these plans could go from short term to lasting nearly a year or longer.

Taken together, experts say, the administration’s actions will tend to increase the price of health insurance that follows all the Affordable Care Act’s rules and increase the popularity of health plans that cover fewer services. The resultcould be divided markets, where healthier people buy lightly regulated plans that don’t cover much health care, lower earners get highly subsidized Obamacare — and sicker middle-class peopleface escalating costs for insurance with comprehensive benefits.

But not everywhere. Several states are considering whether to adopt their own versions of the individual mandate, Obamacare’s rule that people who can afford insurance should pay a fine if they don’t obtain it. A few are looking to tighten rules for short-term health plans. Some states are investing heavily on Obamacare outreach and marketing, even as the federal government cuts back.

The result is likely to be big differences in health insurance options and coverage, depending on where you live. States that lean into the changes might have more health insurance offerings with small price tags, but ones that are inaccessible to people with health problems and don’t cover major health services, like prescription drugs. States pushing back may see more robust Obamacare markets of highly regulated plans, but the price of those plans is likely to remain higher.

 Legislation to replace the individual mandate has already been introduced in Maryland and New Jersey with prominent sponsors. Political leaders in other states, including California, Washington, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut as well as the District of Columbia, are weighing options for replacing the mandate this year, as Stephanie Armour reported in The Wall Street Journal. The mandate was designed to give healthier people an incentive to buy insurance before they fell ill, lowering the cost of insurance for everyone who buys it.

“Clearly, I think the federal administration and Congress are moving in one direction,” said Brian Feldman, a Maryland state senator who leads the state health subcommittee and was the primary sponsor of mandate legislation there. “And I think states like Maryland would like to move in a different direction.”

Mr. Feldman and his colleagues aren’t planning simply to replicate the federal individual mandate. Instead, they are trying a new strategy. People who fail to obtain insurance would still be charged a fine, but they would be allowed to use that money as a “down payment” on a health plan if they wished. Legislators estimate that many people subject to the penalty would not owe anything more to buy health insurance, after federal tax credits are applied.

Other states are hoping to mimic the expiring federal policy more closely. The board governing the insurance marketplace for the District of Columbia voted last week to recommend the adoption of an individual mandate replacement. Connecticut’s governor, Dannel Malloy, is considering a proposal by a Yale health economist.

Those plans are more similar to the Affordable Care Act’s approach, in part for expedience. The federal mandate is set to expire next year, and insurance companies need to develop their health plans and submit 2019 prices by this summer.

“The idea that a state would be able to stand up something, and put out any guidance, and advise stakeholders, and be able to do it by 2019, is pretty infeasible,” said Jason Levitis, a former Obama administration Treasury Department official who has developed legislation to help states draft mandate replacement bills.

Imposing state-level versions of the mandate may be a political challenge even in blue states. But other strategies are in play, too. California is one of a handful of states considering a bill that would effectively ban the short-term insurance plans proposed by the Trump administration. (New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island already effectively block them.)

A number of states across the political spectrum are also considering policies that would provide so-called reinsurance funds, to help protect health insurers from rare, very expensive patients, and help them lower the prices for everyone else.

Alaska, Minnesota and Oregon have already adopted such plans. Washington, New Jersey, Maine, Colorado, Wisconsin and Maryland are working on proposals. Heather Howard, who directs the state health and values strategies program at Princeton University, said that reinsurance plans operated more like a “carrot” in stabilizing insurance markets. They may prove appealing to a broader array of states, while the mandate, a “stick,” may interest politicians only in the most liberal places.

Some Obamacare-averse states are pursuing policies meant to circumvent the health law’s rules for insurance, and broaden options for cheaper, lightly regulated health plans. Idaho has announced a plan to allow insurers to offer health plans that don’t comply with many of Obamacare’s core rules, and one insurer, Blue Cross of Idaho, has said it will begin selling such plans next month.

Alex Azar, the Health and Human Services secretary, has been cagey about whether he will step in to enforce federal law forbidding such products. Meanwhile, the Iowa legislature is considering a bill that would allow a different type of health plan to circumvent Obamacare rules, as The Des Moines Register recently reported. Medica, the only insurer currently offering Obamacare plans, said it might depart the Iowa market if the plan were approved.

The Affordable Care Act was drafted with room for state customization, but one of its primary goals was to make health insurance around the country more uniform. Thanks to state resistance to the health law, varying local conditions and a Supreme Court decision that made the Medicaid expansion optional, results have been much more uneven. Some states have seen much bigger reductions in the share of the uninsured than others. Only some states have seen insurance premiums stabilize.

“Without question I think we’re going to see a natural experiment in the states and a growing divergence in outcomes,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute.

Evidence of that divergence is already here. This year, signups for Affordable Care Act health plans were nearly flat compared with last year, despite huge cuts in federal outreach and advertisement. But states that ran their marketplaces and spent heavily on advertising saw stronger signups, while states that were more resistant to the health law experienced drops. The loss of the mandate, and the proliferation of health plans that don’t follow Obamacare’s rules, are likely to widen those gulfs.

 

 

20 states sue over Obamacare mandate — again

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/26/20-state-sue-over-obamacare-again-425825

A man is pictured entering health insurance exchange center. | Getty

Twenty states are suing the Trump administration over Obamacare’s individual mandate — again.

Wisconsin, Texas and several other red states said in a lawsuit filed today that since Congress repealed the individual mandate’s tax penalty for not having coverage, that means the mandate itself — and the whole health care law — is invalid.

The GOP tax law “eliminated the tax penalty of the ACA, without eliminating the mandate itself,” the states argue in a complaint filed today in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas. “What remains, then, is the individual mandate, without any accompanying exercise of Congress’s taxing power, which the Supreme Court already held that Congress has no authority to enact.”

The Supreme Court in 2012 upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate in one of the highest-profile court cases in years. The justices did not agree then with the Obama administration’s main argument that the mandate penalty was valid under the Commerce Clause. But the justices did say that the mandate was a constitutional tax. The ruling riled conservatives who felt that Chief Justice John Roberts bent legal reasoning to preserve Obamacare.

Now, the states want to use that same Supreme Court ruling to take down the Affordable Care Act — which has withstood numerous legal challenges but which over the past year has been undermined by executive and regulatory actions the Trump administration has taken.

The states also argue that since the mandate is unconstitutional, the whole law should go. They note that Obamacare did not have a “severability clause” — a provision that says if one part of the law is struck by the courts, the rest would stand — so that once part of it is struck down, the rest in invalid.