This week, President Obama published an President Obama published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that is likely to be his last and most comprehensive defense of the Affordable Care Act — a.k.a. Obamacare — while in office. Not surprisingly, it’s a rather one-sided accounting.
The president says the law has reduced the number of uninsured Americans, slowed the pace of rising health-care costs, and improved access to high-quality health care for millions of Americans. He also says more progress would have been made if not for the “hyperpartisanship” infecting Washington. He betrays no hint of self-awareness that perhaps his own conduct and statements, and the manner in which the law was pushed through Congress and enacted, might have been causes of the deep divisions in health-care policy that have persisted throughout his presidency.
. . .
Insurers from Oregon to Pennsylvania, including a failed health-care co-operative and two long-established Blues plans have lost billions of dollars selling Obamacare policies. Now they are suing the federal government to recoup their losses. In a testament to industry desperation, insurers are asking federal judges to simply ignore a congressional ban on the payment of these corporate subsidies.
The regulatory atrocity that is Obamacare inspired this race to the courthouse. Despite billions in subsidies — to both low-income individuals and well-capitalized insurance companies — the industry has incurred big losses in the individual market.
In a paper published June 28 by the Mercatus Center, Brian Blase (Mercatus), Ed Haislmaier (Heritage Foundation), Seth Chandler (University of Houston), and Doug Badger (Galen Institute) used data derived from insurance-company regulatory filings to determine the extent and source of those losses. The study examined the performance of 174 insurers that sold qualified health plans (QHPs) in 2014 to both individuals and small groups (generally companies with 50 or fewer workers).
. . .
To see how vacuous the 2016 presidential campaign has become, consider just one issue: health reform. Exhibit 1: A new study from the liberal Urban Institute estimates that Bernie Sanders’s pet proposal for a single-payer health-care program would cost $32 trillion over the next decade. That’s right: $32 trillion! Exhibit 2: Continuing her strategy for bankrupting America just a little more slowly than Senator Sanders, Hillary Clinton is now calling for a Medicare “buy-in.” Exhibit 3: And Donald Trump’s plan for health-care reform is — well, who the heck knows? It would be helpful if, just for a little bit, we all paid attention to actual issues. Then again, given these three candidates and their proposals, maybe it’s bad news no matter what.
. . .
Here’s some bad news for the insurance industry: Unexpectedly generous corporate subsidies didn’t save companies selling ObamaCare policies from bleeding red ink. The worse news: Those subsidies are set to expire in 2017, meaning that insurers will have to make ends meet without billions in handouts.
Those are among the matters discussed in a study by the Mercatus Center, authored by Brian Blase, Edmund Haislmaier, and Doug Badger. Thestudy, based on detailed data derived from insurer regulatory filings for the 2014 benefit year, finds that companies that sold ObamaCare plans in the individual market lost more than $2.2 billion, despite receiving $6.7 billion (an average of $833 per enrollee) in “reinsurance” subsidies. Those reinsurance payments were 40 percent more generous on a per-enrollee basis than insurers had expected when they set their 2014 premiums.
. . .
United Healthcare’s announcement that it is pulling out of most of the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act is one of many indications of the law’s continuing instability.
There are many other insurance plans in the same boat. Blue Cross Blue Shield plans have dominated the individual and small-group markets in most states for decades. If they were to abandon this market, they would have less ability than United does to grow their business elsewhere. But many of these plans are nonetheless contemplating such a move.
ObamaCare isn’t likely to enter an insurance death spiral; there’s too much federal money propping the whole thing up. But it isn’t on track to become a stable, self-sustaining insurance pool either, because very few middle-class families want to get their insurance through the exchanges. Which means the law is not only unstable financially, it is politically unstable as well.
. . .
In the March 8 rule, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated that Health Savings Account (HSA) eligibility was not a meaningful distinction for health plans because consumers can determine whether a plan is HSA-qualified by examining a plan’s cost-sharing amounts. Therefore, it will not require HSA-qualified plans to be designated as such.
Two main reasons why HSA-qualified plans will not survive is because plans must cover services below the deductible that are not considered “preventative care.” And the plans must apply specific deductibles and out-of-pocket limits that are outside the requirements for HSA-qualified plans.
…
Big government tries to do too many complex things that it can’t do very well. In order to get the job done, government bureaucracies rely on unelected advisory groups from the private sector. For example, in Medicare and Medicaid, the government usually draws advisers from major hospitals and health-insurance companies. You can imagine the opportunities for cronyism and conflicts of interest such a scheme might create.
What makes the risk of corruption even greater is that many of the advisory groups the government puts together are relatively obscure.
…
Thousands of taxpayers must do without a form needed to claim a tax credit for their overpriced health-insurance premiums.
Nationwide, hard-working Americans are struggling to meet the April 18 IRS filing deadline. Standing in the way: the bumbling Obamacare bureaucracy.
…
Obamacare does not have a mandate. Wait: Has Marco Rubio proposed an individual mandate? The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and James Capretta of AEI have engaged in a spirited and informative point-counterpoint on that question here at NRO. Cannon writes that Rubio’s Obamacare-replacement plan is built “around an individual mandate.” Capretta responds by noting that Rubio proposes to repeal all of Obamacare, including “the requirement that all Americans buy government-approved health insurance,” commonly known as the individual mandate.
Pulling Americans from Obamacare’s wreckage should be among the next president’s most urgent priorities. Costs are rising, choices contracting, and regulation metastasizing. Reform will not be easy to achieve. Replacing Obamacare will require open and robust discussion, a process that is more likely to succeed if we’re all speaking the same language and using words to inform, not inflame.
Senator Rubio is proposing to fix a longstanding problem in federal tax law. He wants to make sure that all Americans get a comparable tax break for health insurance, regardless of whether or not they get their insurance through their place of work. For many years, federal law conferred a generous tax break for health insurance only on employer-paid premiums, which are excluded from the taxable compensation of workers for both income- and payroll-tax purposes.
Obamacare’s defenders would say that Obamacare fixed this problem by giving households credits that they can use when they buy insurance through the law’s “exchanges.” But the Obamacare credits are not connected in any way with the value of the tax benefit for employer-provided coverage, they are income-tested and thus phase out for middle-income families, and they can be used only to purchase heavily regulated plans.
Rubio’s proposal would truly level the playing field by first getting rid of Obamacare and then giving Americans who buy insurance on their own, rather than through their place of work, a tax credit of roughly comparable value to the tax break conferred on an employer plan of average cost.