Tag Archives: Non Group Market

How to keep ACA stabilization narrow

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

https://www.axios.com/aca-markets-narrow-problem-2479649219.html

When Congress returns next week, the health debate will shift from trying to pass sweeping legislation to stabilizing the non-group insurance market. This will be a different debate about a thorny but smaller problem. The weaknesses that need to be fixed are fairly specific, and they don’t affect the majority of Americans.

Data: Kaiser Family Foundation; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon / Axios

The bottom line: If Congress can keep the focus on market stabilization and doesn’t get mired in another divisive debate about health reform, and the news media can keep this relatively manageable problem in perspective for the public, there is at least a decent chance for bipartisan cooperation and a successful outcome.

The problem: Premiums in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces have been rising sharply, with the average increase for the benchmark “silver plan” up 21% this year. Proposed rates for next year will range from a 49% increase in Wilmington, Delaware to a 5% decrease in Providence, Rhode Island.

But the non-group market is actually fairly small, covering about 18 million people, with about 10 million of them in the ACA marketplaces which have received so much attention.

The perception: A Kaiser Family Foundation poll this month found that when people read headlines or hear about “premiums soaring” in the ACA marketplaces, most Americans — 76% — they think they are hearing about their own premiums, even though the vast majority of Americans are not in the individual insurance market and are not affected. (A smaller but sizeable percentage believe they are affected when they hear about counties with no or limited insurance options in the ACA marketplaces.)

There are several reasons for this, and the media bears some of the responsibility. Health journalists have generally done an outstanding job covering the issue, but sloppy cable headlines, commentary from pundits, and spin from politicians have too often implied that everyone in America is affected when they are not.

For context: In fact, the rest of the health system where most Americans get their coverage looks very different from the non-group market. As the chart shows:

  • Average premiums in the employer insurance market, where 151 million Americans get their health coverage, rose by an average of just 3% last year. And we’re expecting continued moderation this year.
  • Likewise, per capita spending for Medicaid is projected to grow a modest 3% in 2017, with per capita Medicare spending growing by just 2 percent.

The back story: Insurers and regulators have been struggling with a unique set of issues in the non-group market, most especially a sicker than expected risk pool and the uncertainty surrounding Trump administration policies. The most important areas of uncertainty have been whether the administration will continue to pay out the $7 billion in cost sharing subsidies and enforce the individual mandate.

But even before the ACA, the non-group market was also the weak link of the insurance system, with sick people priced out or excluded from coverage altogether.

What to watch: Some think a deal on stabilizing the non-group market could be as narrow as an agreement to appropriate the $7 billion in federal cost sharing subsidies in exchange for greater flexibility for states under the ACA. That might not be a slam dunk if that flexibility trips over third rail issues, such as endangering coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

But whether the formula for a bipartisan deal is that one or another one, policymakers will have a better chance of addressing the problems in the marketplaces if they forge a narrow agreement. And the debate stands a better chance of not spinning out of control if the news media works overtime to help the public understand who is affected and who is not.

 

Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

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

Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Image result for Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Significant changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are being considered by lawmakers who have been critical of its general approach to providing coverage and to some of its key provisions. An important area where changes will be considered has to do with how people with health problems would be able to gain and keep access to coverage and how much they may have to pay for it.  People’s health is dynamic. At any given time, an estimated 27% of non-elderly adults have health conditions that would make them ineligible for coverage under traditional non-group underwriting standards that existed prior to the ACA. Over their lifetimes, everyone is at risk of having these periods, some short and some that last for the rest of their lives.

One of the biggest changes that the ACA made to the non-group insurance market was to eliminate consideration by insurers of a person’s health or health history in enrollment and rating decisions.  This assured that people who had or who developed health problems would have the same plan choices and pay the same premiums as others, essentially pooling their expected costs together to determine the premiums that all would pay.

Proposals for replacing the ACA such as Rep. Tom Price’s Empowering Patients First Act and Speaker Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” policy paper would repeal these insurance market rules, moving back towards pre-ACA standards where insurers generally had more leeway to use individual health in enrollment and rating for non-group coverage.1  Under these proposals, people without pre-existing conditions would generally be able to purchase coverage anytime from private insurers.  For people with health problems, several approaches have been proposed: (1) requiring insurers to accept people transitioning from previous coverage without a gap (“continuously covered”); (2) allowing insurers to charge higher premiums (within limits) to people with pre-existing conditions who have had a gap in coverage; and (3) establishing high-risk pools, which are public programs that provide coverage to people declined by private insurers.

The idea of assuring access to coverage for people with health problems is a popular one, but doing so is a challenge within a market framework where insurers have considerable flexibility over enrollment, rating and benefits.  People with health conditions have much higher expected health costs than people without them (Table 1 illustrates average costs of individuals with and without “deniable” health conditions). Insurers naturally will decline applicants with health issues and will adjust rates for new and existing enrollees to reflect their health when they can.  Assuring access for people with pre-existing conditions with limits on their premiums means that someone has to pay the difference between their premiums and their costs.  For people enrolling in high-risk pools, some ACA replacement proposals provide for federal grants to states, though the amounts may not be sufficient.  For people gaining access through continuous coverage provisions, these costs would likely be paid by pooling their costs with (i.e., charging more to) other enrollees.  Maintaining this pooling is difficult, however, when insurers have significant flexibility over rates and benefits.  Experience from the pre-ACA market shows how insurers were able to use a variety of strategies to charge higher premiums to people with health problems, even when those problems began after the person enrolled in their plan.  These practices can make getting or keeping coverage unaffordable.

The discussion below focuses on some of the issues faced by people with health issues in the pre-ACA non-group insurance market.  These pre-ACA insurance practices highlight some of the challenges in providing access and stable coverage for people and some of the issues that any ACA replacement plan will need to address. Many ACA replacement proposals have not yet been developed in sufficient detail to fully deal with these questions, or in some cases may defer them to the states.

We start by briefly summarizing key differences between the ACA and pre-ACA insurance market rules for non-group coverage that affect access and continuity of coverage.  We then focus on pre-ACA access and continuity issues for three different groups: (1) people transitioning from employer coverage or Medicaid to the non-group market; (2) people with non-group coverage who develop a health problem; and (3) people who are uninsured (are not considered to have continuous coverage) who want to buy non-group coverage.  After that, we discuss how medical underwriting and rating practices can segment a risk pool, initially and over time, and challenges that this poses for assuring continuous coverage.  We end by reviewing some of the policy choices for addressing the challenges that have been raised.