The New Exchange

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

2/25/2015 9:47 pm  #11

Re: Repubs between a rock & a hard place when it comes to ACA

TheLagerLad wrote:

TheKaiser Family Foundation put an article out tonight that lays out how the the insurance markets could unravel should the SCOTUS rule in favor of King. Worth a read.....

<all emphasis mine>

.....The immediate effect of a Court decision in favor of the plaintiff <King> would be to cut off subsidies in affected states, which could happen within a month of the decision. Currently, in 34 states the federal government is operating the health insurance marketplace, including 7 states where the state is performing some functions. Fourteen states are fully operating state-based marketplaces. And, an additional 3 states – Oregon, New Mexico, and Nevada — are approved as state-based marketplaces but are using to handle subsidy eligibility and enrollment. These 3 states, which are referred to as Federally-supported State-based Marketplaces, could potentially continue to provide subsidies. In the 34 federal marketplace states, 7.5 million people had signed up for coverage for 2015 as of mid-February and qualified for a subsidy. That figure is expected to ramp up significantly in the next year, assuming the Court does not invalidate the subsidies.

People receiving subsidies make up 87% of those who have signed up for coverage for 2015 in states using the federal marketplace. For the vast majority of them, coverage would be unaffordable without the subsidies. The subsidies average $268 monthly per person and cover 72% of the premium, leaving enrollees to pay for 28% of the premium (or an average of $105 per month). With the subsidies eliminated, those who had been receiving them would face an increase in their out-of-pocket premiums averaging 256%.

To encourage healthy people to buy coverage, the ACA includes not only a “carrot” in the form of subsidies but also a “stick” through the individual mandate. A Court decision to cut off the subsidies would eliminate the carrot and severely weaken the stick. The ACA exempts someone from the individual mandate if the lowest-cost insurance available would cost in excess of 8% of income. With subsidies available, less than 3% of uninsured people eligible for subsidies would be exempt. However, if the subsidies are invalidated, we estimate that 83% of those formerly subsidy-eligible uninsured people would end up being exempt from the individual mandate.

As a result, the elimination of the subsidies would destabilize the individual insurance markets in states not running their own marketplaces. Under the ACA, insurers would still be required to guarantee access to coverage irrespective of health status and prohibited from charging sick people more than healthy people. Even without the subsidies, many people who are sick would likely find a way to maintain their insurance in the face of substantial premium increases. However, people who are healthy would likely drop their insurance.

Insurers in the affected states would immediately find themselves in a situation where premiums revenues were insufficient to cover the health care expenses of the remaining enrollees, who would be far sicker on average than what insurers assumed when they set their premiums for 2015. This would trigger a classic adverse selection “death spiral,” where insurers would seek very large premium increases, which in turn would cause the healthier of the remaining enrollees to drop coverage.

These effects would occur for all ACA-compliant individual insurance products both inside and outside of the marketplaces in affected states because insurers are required to pool all of their individual enrollees when establishing premiums.

It is somewhat unclear how quickly insurers could respond by increasing premiums. Under ACA regulations, premiums for insurance sold inside the marketplaces are locked in for a full calendar year. So, the earliest those premiums could change would be January 1, 2016, though even that would be tricky since insurers will have already submitted proposed 2016 premiums to state insurance departments by the time the Court issues a decision. Depending on state laws, premiums for products sold outside of the marketplaces could potentially be increased more quickly. And even if insurers could adjust rates, establishing stable and sustainable premium levels in this type of environment is extremely difficult, because as rates move higher, more of the relatively healthy enrollees drop their coverage.

Because this may all happen very quickly, it is possible that many or all insurers would choose to exit the individual markets in these states rather than facing significant losses in a quickly shrinking market. Insurers that remain in the market risk being one of the only carriers continuing to guarantee access to coverage to people in poor health (since people who lose coverage from exiting insurers have special enrollment periods to choose new coverage). Leaving the market would not be an easy decision for insurers since many are counting on the marketplaces as an important source of future enrollment growth. And, under the ACA, they could not re-enter the individual market for five years. Their decision of whether to stick it out would depend in part on whether they believe that policy solutions that would establish a growing and healthy market were likely in the near future. While some large insurers might be willing to withstand losses for a short period, no insurer will want to cover a significant number of people with high health needs, particularly in a regulated market, out of fear that they may be pressured to sustain the coverage at inadequate premium levels.


Considering recent SCOTUS decisions this actually could happen as quite a few of their recent decisions have already been trainwrecks. 


"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"

Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum