Recent Articles

One primary goal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was to expand access to affordable health care. However, in the five years since the ACA’s passage, we have found that while more people have health insurance, they do not necessarily have access to affordable health care.

In order to pay for the subsidies that have facilitated the expansion of health insurance coverage, many recipients of federal funds were forced to accept payment reductions. Hospitals were faced with cuts of $260 billion over ten years.[1] These reductions came in the form of delayed payment updates for Medicare hospital services and reduced Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments meant to compensate hospitals for treating a high percentage of patients for whom the hospital is often inadequately reimbursed.

ObamaCare supporters have produced study after study warning of the devastation to come if the Supreme Court decides the IRS did in fact illegally extend health insurance subsidies to people in states operating under federal exchanges.

But the American Action Forum (AAF), a dynamic think tank led by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has produced new research that provides balance to what has been a one-sided debate. He shows how people in 37 states will be helped if the petitioners prevail in King v Burwell.

AAF estimates that more than 11 million people would be liberated from having to purchase expensive ObamaCare insurance and freed from the onerous penalties of the individual mandate, which cost those who don’t comply an average of $1,200 in fines this year. The study also finds that workers could earn nearly $1,000 more, and 1.2 million more people would join the workforce in federal exchange states if King prevails in the lawsuit.

In March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case that will decide whether the language of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allows only those who purchase health insurance through state-established exchanges—not federal health exchanges—to qualify for federal subsidies. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy suggested that they may be forced to allow the subsidies for federal exchanges because limiting subsidies to state exchanges might unconstitutionally intrude on the federal-state relationship by coercing states into forming their own health-insurance exchanges. This federalism argument, however, is based on speculation leading to flawed legal reasoning. It shouldn’t determine the outcome the case.

The ACA’s statutory language seems to limit federal subsidies to people enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311,” the ACA section directing states to establish health exchanges.

Nearly a quarter of all people who bought Obamacare health plans still cannot afford the care they need, a leading advocate for President Obama’s healthcare law says.

Families USA, a group that often proposes improvements to the law, says high deductibles make healthcare unaffordable for many people, even though they now have insurance.

A survey released by the group Thursday found that nearly one in four adults shopping in the new insurance marketplaces bought plans with deductibles of $3,000 or more and 42 percent enrolled in plans with at least a $1,500 deductible.

It means many customers are forgoing needed health services because they cannot foot the bill.

“They could not afford tests or they could not afford various treatments or they could not afford the cost of medicines,” said Families USA President Ron Pollack. “The key culprit [is] high deductibles.”

The growth in health care spending has slowed down and President Obama wants America to know his health care law gets the credit. Or maybe the blame, because one reason for that slowdown is that people are spending more out of their own pockets. Health care actuaries say that when people have to spend more out of pocket for health care, they tend to spend less elsewhere. And when a third party—employers, health insurers or the government—insulates consumers from the cost of care they tend to spend more. – See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25652#sthash.KaaCV94L.3b1iR1LZ.dpuf

One of the key questions surrounding Obamacare is just how many people have been newly insured under the law. The answer is clouded by the fact that the White House and others have changed some rules of math for making these assessments.

For example, several years ago, the Obama administration fiddled with the Census Bureau’s definition of what it means to be “uninsured.” The new parameters, which were looser than the old factors, make it hard to construct comparisons between today’s figures for the total number of uninsured and the historical trends.

The Obama team also abruptly started to exclude uninsured illegal immigrants from the national tally on total number of uninsured Americans. Before Obamacare, these individuals were counted in that reporting, inflating the numbers.

One of the key questions surrounding Obamacare is just how many people have been newly insured under the law. The answer is clouded by the fact that the White House and others have changed some rules of math for making these assessments.

For example, several years ago, the Obama Administration fiddled with Census Bureau’s definition of what it means to be “uninsured.” The new parameters, which were looser than the old factors, make it hard to construct comparisons between today’s figures for the total number of uninsured and the historical trends.

The Obama team also abruptly started to exclude uninsured illegal immigrants from the national tally on total number of uninsured Americans. Before Obamacare, these individuals were counted in that reporting, inflating the numbers.

ObamaCare Facts– Go to this link to find the latest numbers and unbiased facts about how people are being effected by Obamacare and what their opinions are on the various aspects of the law.

The Supreme Court’s pending decision in King v. Burwell could upend the way premium subsidies are distributed through the Federal health insurance exchanges in as many as 37 states. The impacted states are those that declined or failed to establish their own exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Examining the insurance market effects we find that:

If nothing else, the collapse of multi-million dollar state-based exchanges has created a PR problem for health reform, but that’s only part of the issue.

In Massachusetts, there is a stew of simmering revelations about apparent mismanagement of the Health Connector, a once working exchange created in 2006 that upon an update for the Affordable Care Act ceased functioning while consuming $1 billion.

Massachusetts health officials knew the Connector was in trouble for a year before its Oct.