A Big Divergence Is Coming in Health Care Among States


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Congress and the Trump administration have reduced Obamacare outreach, weakened benefit requirements, repealed the unpopular individual insurance mandate and broadened opportunities for insurers to offer inexpensive but skimpy plans to more customers.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



UPDATE: CMS seeks expansion of short-term plans to sidestep ACA


Image result for Out of Pocket expenses

Dive Brief:

  • HHS issued a proposed rule on Tuesday that expands the availability of short-term health insurance by allowing the purchase of plans providing coverage for up to 12 months, the latest in the Trump administration’s plans to weaken the Affordable Care Act. The action builds off a request for information by HHS last June on ways to increase affordability of health insurance.
  • The current maximum period for such plans is less than three months, a change made by the Obama administration in 2016. The proposed rule would mark a return to the pre-2016 era, but CMS noted that it is seeking comment on offering short-term plans for periods longer than 12 months.
  • Short-term plans are not required to comply with federal rules for individual health insurance under the ACA, so the plans could charge more for those with preexisting conditions and not provide what the ACA deemed essential health benefits like maternity care.

Dive Insight:

The proposed rule builds off of an executive order President Donald Trump signed in October, which instructed the federal government to explore more access to association health plans, expanding short-term limited duration plans and changes to health reimbursement arrangements or HRAs.

Consumers buying these short-terms plans could lose access to certain healthcare services and providers and experience an increase in out-of-pocket expenditures for some patients, according to the proposal.

The short-term plans “would be unlikely to include all the elements of ACA-compliant plans, such as the preexisting condition exclusion prohibition, coverage of essential health benefits without annual or lifetime dollar limits, preventive care, maternity and prescription drug coverage, rating restrictions and guaranteed renewability,” according to the proposed rule.

The Trump administration argues that expanding access to short-term plans is increasingly important due to rising premiums in the individual markets.

But if young and healthy people leave the individual market for short-term plans, it could contribute to an unbalanced risk pool. HHS itself states that the exodus of young and healthy exchange members could contribute to rising premiums within the ACA exchange markets.

“If individual market single risk pools change as a result, it would result in an increase in premiums for the individuals remaining in those risk pools,” the proposed rule stated.

But when asked about concerns that the idea might hurt the stability of the ACA marketplaces by siphoning healthy people away, CMS Administrator Seema Verma argued there would be little impact.

“No, we don’t think there’s any validity to that — based on our projections only a very small number of healthy people will shift from the individual market to these short-term limited duration plans. Specifically, we estimate that only 100,000 to 200,000 people will shift. And this shift will have will have virtually no impact on the individual market premiums,” Verma said on a press call.

But the insurance lobby cautioned that the action could increase insurance prices for the most vulnerable.

The American Hospital Association and Association for Community Affiliated Plans also slammed the short-term plans, saying they would increase the cost of comprehensive coverage.

“Short-term, limited-duration health plans have a role for consumers who experience gaps in coverage. They are not unlike the small spare tire in a car: they get the job done for short periods of time, but they have severe limitations and you’ll get in trouble if you drive too fast on them,” ACAP CEO Margaret Murray said in a statement.

“While we are reviewing the proposed rule to understand its impact on the people we serve, we remain concerned that expanded use of short-term policies could further fragment the individual market, which would lead to higher premiums for many consumers, particularly those with pre-existing conditions,” said Kristine Grow, SVP of communications at America’s Health Insurance Plans.

HHS anticipates most individuals switching from individual market plans to short-term coverage plans would be relatively young or healthy and not eligible to receive ACA’s premium tax credits.

CMS said the proposal is one to help the 28 million Americans without health insurance, pointing to the 6.7 million who chose to pay the individual mandate penalty in 2015 as evidence that ACA-compliant plans are too expensive.

“In a market that is experiencing double-digit rate increases, allowing short-term, limited-duration insurance to cover longer periods gives Americans options and could be the difference between someone getting coverage or going without coverage at all,” Verma said in a statement.

Senate HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., praised the action, but cautioned that states still have a responsibility to protect consumers.

“Millions of Americans who are between jobs and who pay for their own insurance will welcome this extended option for lower-cost, short-term policies. States will have the responsibility for making sure these policies benefit consumers,” Alexander said in a statement.

Democrats largely oppose the move, arguing it will further destabilize the market for millions of Americans in the ACA exchanges. “Widespread marketing of these bare bones, junk plans will further destabilize health insurance markets, and will lead to higher premiums for everyone,” a group of House Democrats said in a joint statement.

As Republicans are not likely to take up ACA repeal again any time soon, the Trump administration has been working to pare back the law in the past several months. It halved the enrollment period and stopped paying cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers. Also, the recent tax overhaul included a repeal of the law’s requirement that most people have coverage.

Collins’ Obamacare deal faces moment of truth


Image result for short changing healthcare

House conservatives thumb their nose at the Maine moderate’s bid to slow the demise of the health law.

Sen. Susan Collins is barreling toward yet another health care showdown with her own party. But this time, she might not have the leverage to get what she wants.

Republicans who watched Collins lead the rebellion over the GOP’s Obamacare repeal effort just three months ago are playing tough on yet another high-stakes bill, wagering they can do without the Maine moderate’s swing vote and still claim a narrow year-end legislative win on tax reform.

Collins went along with the tax bill that repeals Obamacare’s individual mandate after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pledged to pass a pair of bills propping up Obamacare’s shaky insurance markets, including a bipartisan deal resuming payments on key subsidies that President Donald Trump halted in October.

But Speaker Paul Ryan has made clear he’s not bound by the deal, and there’s little urgency among House Republicans to do much of anything on health care before the end of the year. On Thursday, Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker said conservatives received assurances that talks on a spending package to keep the government open won’t address Obamacare.

“The three things we were told are not gonna happen as part of our agreement: no CSRs, no DACA, no debt limit,” he said, referring to efforts to fund Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies.

That could cost Collins’ support after she signaled that her vote on the final bill may hinge on the fate of the health care measures.

She told a Maine CBS affiliate Thursday night that she’d wait to see the final language from the conference committee working on the tax bill before committing her vote.

“I won’t make a final decision until I see what that package is,” Collins told CBS WABI 5.

One bill, known as Alexander-Murray, would temporarily restore subsidies to insurers. The second would fund a two-year reinsurance program helping health plans cover particularly expensive patients.

Senate Republicans can only afford two defections and still pass the tax bill using a fast-track procedure that requires a simple majority, with Vice President Mike Pence ready to cast the tie-breaking vote. The margin would become razor thin if Collins holds out, and Sen. Bob Corker maintains his opposition over concerns about the bill’s impact on the deficit.

Yet House Republicans still chafing over the Senate’s failure to repeal Obamacare insist they won’t bend to Collins’ demands. And while Senate Republicans are trying to keep Collins in the fold, there’s little apparent worry so far that her opposition would sink the tax effort.

“I think you guys have to find something else to be concerned about,” said Sen. Tim Scott, one of the 17 GOP lawmakers assigned to merge the House and Senate versions of the tax plan.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, who coauthored Alexander-Murray and has championed its inclusion in a year-end agreement, also waved off the need to pressure House Republicans on the issue.

“The House knows our position,” he said. “When they see that they can lower premiums 18 percent … reduce the debt, reduce the amount of money going to Obamacare subsidies, I think it’ll be a Christmas present they’ll want to give to their constituents.”

One of the few moderates in a Republican conference that narrowly controls the Senate, Collins has regularly used her voice and vote to extract concessions from GOP leaders and ensure she’s a central figure in negotiations.

During the health care debate, she urged the GOP to protect Medicaid and preserve more subsidies for people to buy insurance. When they stuck with their blueprint, Collins joined fellow Republicans Lisa Murkowski and John McCain in a dramatic vote that killed the months-long repeal bid.

And in the run-up to the Senate’s late-night tax vote, she secured three late changes to the bill, including the expansion of a provision allowing people to deduct hefty medical bills that House Republicans had voted to eliminate entirely.

That was on top of McConnell’s “ironclad commitment” to tackle the two health care bills at year’s end — measures that Collins claims will help offset premium increases stemming from the bill’s repeal of Obamacare’s mandate that most Americans be insured.

Collins said Thursday she considers House passage of those Obamacare bills part of that commitment, even though McConnell has only publicly agreed to “supporting passage” of them and can’t singlehandedly force the House to take up legislation.

Ryan hasn’t officially ruled out the possibility, but declined to commit to rolling either of the bills into upcoming spending agreements. Conservatives have loudly opposed any aid for Obamacare, and even moderates who support stabilizing the health law have shrugged at the exact timing.

“What the vehicle is to get it through the system, in the House and the Senate to the president’s desk, I’ll leave that to our leadership,” said Rep. Tom Reed, who co-chairs the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.

Collins insists she’s taking the long view, claiming progress Thursday on trying to win over House Republicans during rounds of private negotiations.

“I remain confident, despite your skepticism, that we will eventually get that,” she said.

And as the GOP learned during the repeal debate, the whip count could shift suddenly. Sens. Jeff Flake and Ron Johnson remain wild cards, and either could conceivably join Corker and Collins in torpedoing the tax bill if they dislike the final version.

For now though, Republican leaders are signaling once again that Collins may not get everything she wants on health care — and gambling it won’t cost them a second time.

“I think that these are separate issues,” said Sen. David Perdue. “I’m hopeful that that won’t derail this [tax bill]. We’ve got to get it this done and get it on the president’s desk.”

With House conservatives’ resistance, ACA stabilization bills’ prospects get dimmer


Image result for free rider problem

Senate GOP leaders won a key swing vote for their tax bill by pledging to pass bipartisan legislation to shore up the Affordable Care Act. But now it looks like those measures’ chances of becoming law are getting dimmer.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, wants two bills to pass that she hopes will mitigate the effects of a provision in the tax bill that repeals the individual mandate: the Alexander-Murray bill, which would fund cost-sharing reduction payments for two years, and a bill she co-authored with Democrat Bill Nelson, which provides funding for states to establish invisible high-risk pool or reinsurance programs.

Collins voted for the Senate’s version of the tax bill—a critical win for GOP leaders, as they could only lose two votes and it failed to gain her support for previous ACA repeal bills. But she only did so after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell assured her the two ACA stabilization measures would pass.

Yet while some lawmakers previously said those measures could be tacked on to the short-term spending bill Congress aims to pass this week, congressional aides now say it isn’t likely to be included, according to The Wall Street Journal. Further, while House conservatives have indicated strong support for repealing the individual mandate in the final version of the GOP tax bill, they are far from on board with the two ACA stabilization bills.

For example, Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson said he’s a “hard, hard, very hard no,” on the Alexander-Murray bill, per the WSJ article.

House Speaker Paul Ryan could also be a barrier to passing the two bills. His office told a meeting of congressional leadership offices on Monday that he wasn’t part of any deal between Collins and McConnell, The Hill reported. But his office didn’t say outright that it opposed the bills.

For her part, Collins said it will be “very problematic” if the ACA stabilization bills don’t pass, according to the WSJ. She also won’t commit to voting for the final version of the tax bill until she sees what comes out of a conference committee between the House and Senate.

Even if those measures do pass, there have been questions about whether they would do enough to soften the blow of repealing the individual mandate. The Congressional Budget Office has advised that the Alexander-Murray bill would do little to change its prediction that repealing the mandate would increase the uninsured rate and raise premiums.

A new analysis from Avalere found that Collins’ bill could help stabilize the individual market by increasing enrollment and reducing premiums in 2019, but the consulting firm’s experts cautioned that those effects could be overshadowed by repealing the individual mandate.


Marketplace Confusion Opens Door To Questions About Skinny Plans

Marketplace Confusion Opens Door To Questions About Skinny Plans

Consumers coping with the high cost of health insurance are the target market for new plans claiming to be lower-cost alternatives to the Affordable Care Act that fulfill the law’s requirement for health coverage.

But experts and regulators warn consumers to be cautious and are raising red flags about one set of limited benefit plans marketed to individuals for as little as $93 a month. Offered through brokers and online ads, the plans promise to be an “ACA compliant, affordable, integrated solution that help … individuals avoid the penalties under [the health law].”

Legal and policy experts have raised concerns that the new plans could leave buyers incorrectly thinking they are exempt from paying a penalty for not having coverage. Additionally, they say, plans sold to individuals must be state-licensed.

Apex Management Group of Oak Brook, Ill., and Pennsylvania-based Xpress Healthcare have teamed up to offer the plans, and executives from both companies say they don’t need state approval to sell them.

In California, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has already asked for an investigation.

“Generally speaking, any entity selling health insurance in the state of California has to have a license,” Jones said earlier this month. “I have asked the Department of Insurance staff to open an investigation with regard to this company to ascertain whether it is in violation of California law if they are selling it in California.”

Asked about a possible investigation, Apex owner Jeffrey Bemoras recently emailed a statement saying the firm is not offering the plans to individuals in California.

Bruce Benton, spokesman for the California Association of Health Underwriters, which represents the state’s health insurance agents, said his organization has not heard of Apex or Xpress and does not know of anybody who is selling their skinny plans in California.

These skinny plans — sold for the first time to individuals in other states across the country — come amid uncertainty over the fate of the ACA and whether President Donald Trump’s administration will ease rules on plans in the individual market. Dozens of brokers are offering the plans.

“The Trump administration is injecting a significant amount of confusion into the implementation of the ACA,” said Kevin Lucia, project director at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. “So it doesn’t surprise me that we would have arrangements popping up that might be trying to take advantage of that confusion.”

David Shull, Apex’s director of business development, said “this is not insurance” and the plans are designed to meet the “bulk of someone’s day-to-day needs.”

In his email, Bemoras wrote that “Apex Management group adheres closely to all state and federal rules and regulations surrounding offering a self-insured MEC [minimal essential coverage] program.” He added: “We are test marketing our product in the individual environment, [and] if at some point it doesn’t make sense to continue that investment we will not invest or focus in on that market.”

Price-Tag Appeal, But What About Coverage?

The new plans promise to be a solution for individuals who say that conventional health insurance is too expensive. Those looking for alternatives to the ACA often earn too much to qualify for tax subsidies under the federal law.

Donna Harper, an insurance agent who runs a two-person brokerage in Crystal Lake, Ill., found herself in that situation. She sells the Xpress plans — and decided to buy one herself.

Harper says she canceled her BlueCross BlueShield plan, which did meet the ACA’s requirements, after it rose to nearly $11,000 in premiums this year, with a $6,000 annual deductible.

“Self-employed people are being priced out of the market,” she said, noting the new Xpress plan will save her more than $500 a month.

The Xpress Minimum Essential Coverage plans come in three levels, costing as little as $93 a month for individuals to as much as $516 for a family. They cover preventive care — including certain cancer screenings and vaccinations — while providing limited benefits for doctor visits, lab tests and lower-cost prescription drugs.

There is little or no coverage for hospital, emergency room care and expensive prescription drugs, such as chemotherapy.

Harper said she generally recommends that her clients who sign up for an Xpress plan also buy a hospital-only policy offered by other insurers. That extra policy would pay a set amount toward in-patient care — often ranging from $1,500 to $5,000 or so a day.

Still, experts caution that hospital bills are generally much higher than those amounts. A three-day stay averages $30,000, according to the federal government’s insurance website. And hospital plans can have tougher requirements. Unlike the Xpress programs, which don’t reject applicants who have preexisting medical conditions, most hospital-only plans often do. Harper says she personally was rejected for one.

“I haven’t been in the hospital for 40 years, so I’m going to roll the dice,” she said.  And if she winds up in the hospital? “I’ll just pay the bill.”

About 100 brokers nationwide are selling the plans, and interest “is picking up quick,” said Edward Pettola, co-owner and founder of Xpress, which for years has sold programs that offer discounts on dental, vision and prescription services.

Caveat Emptor

Experts question whether the plans exempt policyholders from the ACA’s tax penalty for not having “qualified” coverage, defined as a policy from an employer, a government program or a licensed product purchased on the individual market.

The penalty for tax year 2017 is the greater of a flat fee or a percentage of income. The annual total could range from as little as $695 for an individual to as much as $3,264 for a family.

Trump issued an executive order in October designed to loosen insurance restrictions on lower-cost, alternative forms of coverage, but the administration has not signaled its view on what would be deemed qualified coverage.

Responding to questions from KHN, officials from Apex and Xpress said their plans are designed to be affordable, not to mimic ACA health plans.

“If that is what we are expected to do, just deliver what every Marketplace plan or carriers do, provide a Bronze, Silver Plan, etc. it would not solve the problem in addressing a benefit plan that is affordable,” the companies said in a joint email on Nov. 14. “Individuals are not required to have an insurance plan, but a plan that meets minimum essential coverage, the required preventive care services.”

Bemoras, in a separate interview, said his company has been selling a version of the plan to employers since 2015.

“As we see the political environment moving and wavering and not understanding what needs to be done, the individual market became extremely attractive to us,” Bemoras said.

Still, experts who reviewed the plans for KHN said policies sold to individuals must cover 10 broad categories of health care to qualify as ACA-compliant, including hospitalization and emergency room care, and cannot set annual or lifetime limits.

The Xpress/Apex programs do set limits, paying zero to $2,500 annually toward hospital care. Doctor visits are covered for a $20 copayment, but coverage is limited to three per year. Lab tests are limited to five services annually. To get those prices, patients have to use a physician or facility in the PHCS network, which says it has 900,000 providers nationwide. Low-cost generics are covered for as little as a $1 copay, but the amount patients pay rises sharply for more expensive drugs.

“I’m very skeptical,” said attorney Alden J. Bianchi of Mintz Levin, who advises firms on employee benefits. “That would be hard [to do] because in the individual market, you have to cover all the essential health benefits.”

The details can be confusing, partly because federal law allows group health plans — generally those offered by large employers — to provide workers with self-funded, minimal coverage plans like those offered by Apex, Bianchi said.

Apex’s Shull said in a recent email that the firm simply wants to offer coverage to people who otherwise could not afford an ACA plan.

“There will be states that want to halt this. Why, I do not understand,” he wrote. “Would an individual be better off going without anything? If they need prescriptions, lab or imaging services subject to a small copay, would you want to be the one to deny them?”

Some consumers might find the price attractive, but also find themselves vulnerable to unexpected costs, including the tax liability of not having ACA-compliant coverage.

Harper, the broker who signed up for one of the plans, remains confident: “As long as Xpress satisfies the [mandate], which I’m told it does, my clients are in good hands. Even if it doesn’t, I don’t think it’s a big deal. You are saving that [the tax penalty amount] a month.”


Trump’s (overlooked) plans for employer coverage


Image result for pre existing conditions

Trump’s executive order will likely include a provision making it easier for employers to set aside some money, tax-free, to help their workers pay insurance premiums. This one hasn’t gotten as much attention yet as some of the other policies Trump is expected to pursue, but it’s a big deal — one insurers fear could push more people into a shaky market.

The details: Employers already can set aside some pre-tax dollars to help cover employees’ health care costs. Trump’s executive order will likely expand those programs so that they can be used to help employees cover the premiums for an individual insurance policy, an insurance industry official told me.

The reactions:

  • Insurers are afraid this will give employers an incentive to stop offering traditional health benefits: Why go to all the trouble of finding and offering a health care plan if you can just offer your workers some money to go buy their own?
  • “That would be survivable, I think,” if the individual market were more stable, the official said. But because that market is shaky, insurers are nervous.
  • Another fear: Employers might be able to offer coverage to their younger employees, while using these new funds to shift older workers, who tend to have higher health care costs, into the individual market.

The unknowns: Dumping workers into the individual market, even with help paying their premiums, would likely trigger penalties under the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, the insurance official said. That might be a disincentive to use these new options — if the Trump administration were planning tough enforcement of the employer mandate.

The bottom line: Other sections of Trump’s executive order will likely pull healthy people out of the individual market; this one could push unhealthy people into it. Insurers are uneasy about both sides of that equation, and say they haven’t had a chance to offer the policy feedback previous administrations would have sought out.

What else to expect from Trump’s executive order

Here’s a quick rundown of what else to expect from today’s executive order:

  • The order itself probably won’t fill in the details of how its policy changes would work. Look for broad outlines, with the nitty-gritty coming separately — probably in the form of a proposed rule from the Labor Department.
  • Although the public will technically have an opportunity to comment on that proposed rule, the insurance industry official told me the final version is largely already written.

The policy:

  • Association health plans: Trump will likely make it easier for individuals (for example, a group of freelancers) to band together and buy insurance like a large employer would.
  • New associations will likely need some form of approval before they can start buying insurance, but insurers don’t expect that process to be much more than a rubber stamp.
  • Short-term plans: Trump is expected to let people hang onto short-term, stopgap policies for a full year; they’re currently limited to three months. Those plans don’t cover much and don’t have to comply with many of the ACA’s consumer protections.
  • Total impact: Insurers and independent policy experts fear that both of those measures would weaken the individual market by pulling healthy people out of it and into skimpier, cheaper coverage.