Dec. 26, 2014, was strike three for Pamela Weldin.
The day after Christmas, Weldin, of Minatare, Neb., had logged on to Facebook to find a message from a friend of hers. Included in the note was a link to an article from the Omaha World-Herald announcing that CoOportunity Health, a nonprofit health insurance company offering plans in Nebraska and Iowa, had been taken over by state regulators.
The insurer, one of 23 Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, or co-ops, started with the backing of the federal government and received $145 million in loans from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. But, CoOportunity’s expenses and medical claims would far exceed its revenue for 2014.
EARLY next month the Supreme Court will hear arguments in King v. Burwell, the latest significant legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The petitioners argue that under the statute, the federal government is not allowed to provide health insurance subsidies in the 37 states that have either declined or failed to establish their own exchanges.
Should the court decide in the petitioners’ favor, most likely in June, critics in Congress will feel vindicated. But then comes the hard part: Congress must be ready with a targeted plan to help at least six million people who would quickly lose that federal assistance, and most likely their insurance.
While several Republicans in Congress have offered serious proposals to replace Obamacare, debating a wholesale replacement of the Affordable Care Act would take months, even years. But it is essential for Congress to move fast on a short-term solution. About 85 percent of people who bought plans on the exchanges receive subsidies, and most could not afford the policies without them. If fewer people are enrolled and new enrollments decline, premiums will rise, leading to the breakdown of the exchange markets.
If the Supreme Court decides that the Affordable Care Act means what it says — that subsidies are available only if a state establishes its own exchange — then President Obama’s signature legislative initiative would be significantly weakened in two-thirds of the states.
Fortunately, there is a way out, one that President Obama, forced by the court to the negotiating table, might be willing to accept. The first step would be for Congress to pass legislation that would allow people to keep subsidies they have already received, and allow subsidies for existing policies to continue through this year so people don’t immediately lose their existing coverage.
Then, beginning in 2016, instead of subsidies to individuals, the 37 states without exchanges could receive a new, capped allotment from the federal government that we call health checks. States could use the allocation to provide immediate premium assistance to people affected by the court decision, and similar checks could be extended to others who would need insurance afterward.
The money would be distributed using the same infrastructure used to disburse funds for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers nearly nine million children. States know how to manage this platform, and could use it to distribute insurance premium support. (The “checks” could, of course, be distributed as electronic credits to insurers, which would be applied on a monthly basis to offset the cost of insurance policies individuals select.)
This might sound like the same subsidies by a different name, but one advantage would be that health insurance policies supported by health checks would not be subject to the Affordable Care Act’s mandates, taxes, insurance rules and benefit requirements.
Currently, to qualify for a subsidy under the act, a health plan must cover a long list of benefits, many of which unnecessarily increase costs. Under our plan, people could apply their allotments toward the purchase of any health insurance plans or policies approved by their state. States could decide what regulations were needed to protect consumers while still providing opportunities for less expensive policies unburdened by excessive regulation and mandates. Such flexibility would also increase enrollment rates: People would be more likely to purchase policies if they had options that cost less and better fit their needs.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Of course, in reality, should the court decide against the Affordable Care Act, there are other options. Some supporters of the law are encouraging President Obama to simply declare existing federal exchanges to be state exchanges or license them to the states — a move that would further complicate an already ungainly law and already frayed executive-congressional relations.
Others say that the 37 states without federal exchanges would have no choice but to quickly establish exchanges so that residents didn’t lose coverage, even if they were ardent opponents of the law. Some might, but it’s a good bet that many wouldn’t, at least not in time to prevent their citizens from losing coverage.
Health checks offer a politically palatable third way. They would return control over health insurance to the states, with new resources to help their residents. And they would preserve the Affordable Care Act’s present extension of coverage, which would make them more palatable to the Obama administration.
There is no way to know how the Supreme Court will rule in King v. Burwell, but it is incumbent upon both parties in Congress to be ready for the fallout should it decide against the Affordable Care Act. Health checks offer a simple, practical answer, and a start toward further efforts to reform our health insurance system.
WHEN Karen Pineman of Manhattan received notice that her longtime health insurance policy didn’t comply with the Affordable Care Act’s requirements, she gamely set about shopping for a new policy through the public marketplace. After all, she’d supported President Obama and the act as a matter of principle.
Ms. Pineman, who is self-employed, accepted that she’d have to pay higher premiums for a plan with a narrower provider network and no out-of-network coverage. She accepted that she’d have to pay out of pocket to see her primary care physician, who didn’t participate. She even accepted having co-pays of nearly $1,800 to have a cast put on her ankle in an emergency room after she broke it while playing tennis.
Some 3 million to 6 million Americans will have to pay an Obamacare tax penalty for not having health insurance last year, Treasury officials said Wednesday. It’s the first time they have given estimates for how many people will be subject to a fine.
The penalty is $95, or 1% of income above a certain threshold (roughly $20,000 for a couple). So you could end up owing the IRS a lot of money.
A nonpartisan entity of the federal government has found that the Affordable Care Act will cost the government less than expected. However, the reduction in the law’s price tag comes among findings that millions of Americans could lose their employer-provided health insurance.
The Congressional Budget Office came out with a report yesterday revising the costs and budgetary effects of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Healthcare costs and lack of money or low wages rank as the most important financial problems facing American families, each mentioned by 14% of U.S. adults. Fewer Americans than a year ago cite the high cost of living or unemployment, and the percentage naming oil or gas prices is down from 2012.
Gallup has been asking Americans about the most important financial problem facing their family in an open-ended format for the past 10 years. Healthcare this year has returned to the top of the list for the first time since early 2010, when the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” was signed into law. Still, Americans viewed it as an even bigger financial problem in 2007, when a range of 16% to 19% said it was most important.
After the lofty promises that led to passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, young people are waking up to how much the law targets them with higher costs. Yes, those lucky enough to be covered on their parents’ health plans can postpone the consequences until they are 26. But for the rest, the situation is grim: Young people face disproportionately high costs to pay for coverage and a crushing burden of taxes that could impede their future prosperity.
By Ben Casselman
On Friday, I posted this chart, showing that nearly all the job growth since the recession ended has been in full-time jobs. Part-time employment is pretty much flat.
I wasn’t trying to make a political point, but many readers saw one anyway. Specifically, they saw it as a refutation of a frequent Republican talking point: that the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” is killing full-time jobs because it requires employers to offer health insurance to their full-time (but not their part-time) workers.
Deluged with catastrophes, court challenges and criticism, Obamacare (ACA) has had a controversial life to date. Yet it is ready to enter a completely new phase where the implementation gets shifted to the Internal Revenue Service – America’s favorite three words. If you liked the health care plan up to now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
On Sunday evening, CBS’ 60 Minutes did a feature story on Steven Brill’s new book, America’s Bitter Pill, in which Brill complains that Obamacare didn’t do enough to tackle the exorbitantly high price of U.S. hospital care. “Obamacare does zero to change any of that,” says Brill. That’s not exactly right. What Brill—and CBS—don’t tell you—is that Obamacare is driving hospitals to charge you more than they already do.
The U.S. hospital industry is crony capitalism at its finest