The Better Solution for Our Health Insurance System: A Plan You Can Actually Keep

Sometimes, liberals and conservatives agree on a policy problem, but disagree strongly on the best solutions to that problem. Our health insurance system presents one case of such a disconnect between problems and solutions.

In the last Democratic presidential debate, hosted by CNN in March, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said that the coronavirus pandemic made the “dysfunctionality of the current health care system … obviously apparent.” He elaborated in an April op-ed in Politico, in which he noted that “already, an estimated 9.2 million workers have lost their employer-sponsored insurance, and as many as 35 million people might lose coverage by the end of the crisis.”

Sanders makes a valid point: The pandemic does illustrate the shortcomings of our system of health coverage. But his single-payer health care plan — or even Joe Biden’s proposal for a (purportedly) voluntary government-run “option” in which individuals could enroll — would take the system in the exact opposite direction.

The dysfunctionality of the system exists largely because employers control most Americans’ health insurance. Most conservatives would therefore support letting individuals control their health coverage, rather than liberals’ plan to replace employer control with government control. Thankfully, the Trump administration has moved health policy in that exact direction, laying the groundwork for a movement toward more personalized insurance options.

The Problem: Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Sanders cited a study from Health Management Associates stating that as many as 35 million individuals could lose access to employer-sponsored insurance due to coronavirus-related layoffs. A revised paper, released in late May, did not specifically update estimates for the number of people losing employer insurance, but still showed significant coverage losses. Other estimates have indicated similarly large numbers of Americans losing their employer coverage.

The sudden job losses sparked by coronavirus lockdowns have illustrated one of the three major problems with employer-provided health insurance. Individually and collectively, these flaws have represented a problem hidden in plain sight for decades.

Lack of choice: The largest survey of employer-provided health insurance found that in 2019, exactly three-quarters of firms (75%) offered only one type of health insurance plan. In general, large firms offer more choices than small businesses, but even among the largest firms — those with more than 5,000 workers.

Because the employer and not the employee owns the insurance policy, workers often end up stuck with whatever plan their employer chooses. An individual who doesn’t want to enroll in an HMO, or whose doctors lie outside his or her employer’s provider network, might have few choices but to switch jobs or accept a plan that does not meet his or her needs.

In its first season, the U.S. version of “The Office” satirized this dynamic, when resident megalomaniac Dwight Schrute got charged with picking the office health plan — and let the power go to his head. While Americans don’t have to worry about contracting “Count Choculitis,” one of the fictitious diseases Schrute’s co-workers invented to needle him in the episode, they do face the very real worry that their employer’s choices and wishes regarding health care might not align with their own.

Flawed incentives: A conversation with one of my friends several years ago illustrated this problem. My friend said he loved the insurance plan his employer provided: “I can go to the doctor and it only costs me a $5 co-pay.”

I posed a thought experiment: What if your health insurance suddenly became taxable, and you had to pay $1,500 or so in taxes on that coverage? (At the time, a top-of-the-line plan cost about $6,000 for an individual, and I assumed a 25% state and local tax rate.) He responded immediately: “I wouldn’t want the plan — I would tell them to raise my co-pays and deductibles.”

That response illustrates the policy problem of employer-sponsored insurance: Everyone thinks they’re spending everyone else’s money. Employees don’t pay taxes on employer coverage; an IRS ruling during World War II, later codified by Congress, exempts employer-provided benefits from both income and payroll taxes.

All the incentives regarding employer-provided health care point in the wrong direction. Exempting employer coverage from taxation encourages individuals to take more compensation in untaxed health insurance benefits rather than taxable wages. Many employees don’t even realize that the employer’s share of the contribution for their coverage — which averaged nearly $15,000 for a family policy in 2019 — comes out of their own wallets in the form of lost wages.

All the flawed and misaligned incentives mean that the co-pay of “only” $5 my friend talked about years ago costs far more than that — to workers, employers and the economy as a whole. It’s one major reason why our health care system represents such a large, and rising, share of our economy.

Lack of portability: This issue arises because employers and not individuals own their health plans. As a result, when individuals lose their jobs, they also lose their health coverage. That dynamic results in the double whammy Americans have experienced during the pandemic, when workers lose their coverage at the same time they have unexpectedly lost their job — compounding families’ financial distress.

Lack of portability also exacerbates the problem of pre-existing conditions. Upon entering the workforce in their teens or 20s, most individuals have yet to develop a pre-existing condition like cancer or diabetes. But every time individuals switch jobs, they lose their employer-provided health coverage — making them vulnerable if they have developed a condition in the intervening time.

The worst kinds of situations occur when individuals must leave their jobs because they have become too sick to work. These patients face not one but two potential sources of financial ruin: They have lost their source of income, and face the prospect of astronomical medical bills without a means to fund them.

Cure the Disease, Not the Symptoms

In the past several years, Democrats have spent lots of time talking about the need to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions. But in focusing on pre-existing conditions, the left focuses on the symptom, rather than the underlying problem.

Remember: When Obamacare went into effect in January 2014, at least 4.7 million individuals received cancellation notices, according to The Associated Press. These individuals had plans that they liked, and wanted to keep — but the Obama administration wouldn’t let them. Politifact called the promise that Americans could keep their plan the 2013 “Lie of the Year,” and that lie affected many individuals who had developed, or feared that they would develop, a pre-existing condition. Let’s spare the notion that Democrats want to “protect” people with pre-existing conditions, when they “protected” millions of people right out of their coverage.

Liberals don’t talk about the underlying policy issue that creates the pre-existing condition problem — that people don’t own their own health coverage — because they don’t want people to own their own insurance. They want Washington to control health care decisions, not individual patients. It’s the classic example of former President Ronald Reagan’s nine most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

But if individuals could buy an insurance policy upon joining the workforce — one that they owned, not their employer — and retain that policy from job to job for decades, most individuals could buy coverage well before they develop a pre-existing condition, and keep that coverage after they do so, the pre-existing condition problem would rapidly diminish. (Yes, a small percentage of Americans, most notably those born with congenital illnesses, develop pre-existing conditions very early in life, but other policy solutions can address this population.)

Trump Administration’s Solution

You wouldn’t know it, given all the carping and hostility from the left, but the Trump administration has put forward a very positive solution that answers the policy problems associated with employer-provided health coverage. It should increase portability in ways that help solve the pre-existing condition problem, while also providing additional choice and competition.

The administration’s policy, implemented through regulations finalized in 2019, allows employers to contribute funds to workers on a pre-tax basis through Health Reimbursement Arrangements. These HRAs allow individuals to purchase coverage that they own, not their employers — making the coverage portable from job to job.

The HRA concept provides wins for employers, employees and the economy as a whole:

• Employers get predictability when it comes to their health insurance offerings. By providing employees a fixed sum (say, $300 or $500 a month) into the HRA, they will not have to worry about changing plans from year to year, a sudden spike in costs because of a sick employee, or many of the other paperwork hassles associated with offering coverage.
• Employees get both choice and portability. They can select the insurance plan that best meets their needs — the doctors, deductibles and plan features that they want. Not only can they keep the plan when they switch jobs, the fact that they and not their employer chose the coverage in the first place will make them more likely to do so.
• The economy will benefit from individuals selecting the plans they want, rather than the plans employers select for them. Insurers will have to provide better, more customized plans that fit individuals’ needs, and employees will have incentives to make better choices to stretch the HRA dollars their employers provide them.

Ideally, Congress would amend the law regarding Health Savings Accounts, to allow individuals to use HSA dollars to fund health insurance premiums. Because HSA funds cannot pay insurance premiums in most cases under current law, the Trump administration had to use Health Reimbursement Arrangements (which are owned by employers) rather than Health Savings Accounts (which are always owned by individuals) to fund individual coverage.

Providing contributions via an HSA, as opposed to an HRA, would allow employees to control any unused employer contributions upon leaving a job. That way, individuals would not only have a source of coverage in the event of a layoff, they could develop a source of savings to pay for that coverage while unemployed. But until Congress acts, the Trump administration’s Health Reimbursement Arrangement regulations represent a tremendous step forward toward a more logical, patient-centered insurance system.

Empower Patients, Not Government

Coronavirus has made the problems with government control of health care apparent. As Joe Biden (of all people) noted in the March CNN debate, Italy has a single-payer system — and that nation had to ration access to ventilators, whereas the United States did not.

The pandemic has exposed the flaws in our health insurance system. But it comes just as the Trump administration has shown a better path forward. By empowering patients rather than government bureaucrats, Health Reimbursement Arrangements can help transform the coverage system into something that lowers costs and provides the care American patients prefer.

This post was originally published at the Daily Caller’s American Renewal blog.

We Should Move Away from Employer-Based Insurance, But NOT Towards Single Payer

The left continues to seek ways to politically capitalize on the coronavirus crisis. Multiple proposals in the past several weeks would replace a potential decline in employer-provided health insurance with government-run care.

One analysis released earlier this month found the coronavirus pandemic could cause anywhere from 12 to 35 million Americans to lose their employer-provided coverage, as individuals lose jobs due to virus-related shutdowns. Of course, these coverage losses could remain temporary in some cases, as firms reopen and rehire furloughed workers.

But these lefties do have a point: The United States should move away from employer-provided health coverage. It just shouldn’t rely upon a government-run model to do so.

Biden: Let’s Expand an Insolvent Program

Days after his last remaining rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, former vice president and presumptive nominee Joe Biden endorsed a plan to expand Medicare. Biden’s statement didn’t include details. Instead, he “directed [his] team to come up with a plan to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60.”

One big problem with Biden’s proposed expansion: Medicare already faces an insolvency date of 2026, a date the current economic turmoil will almost certainly accelerate. He claimed that “any new federal cost associated with this option would be financed out of general revenues to protect the Medicare trust fund.” But Biden didn’t explain why he would choose to expand a program rapidly approaching insolvency as it is.

Another problem for Biden seems more political. As this space has previously noted, in 2017 and 2018, the former vice president and his wife received more than $13 million in book and speech revenue as profits from a corporation rather than wage income. By doing so, they avoided paying nearly $400,000 in payroll taxes that fund—you guessed it!—Medicare.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to ask the obvious question: If Biden loves Medicare so much that he wants to expand it, why didn’t he pay his Medicare taxes?

Medicare Extra

Other liberals have proposals that would expand the government’s role in health care still further. Examining the impact of coronavirus on coverage, and analyzing a movement away from employer-provided care, Ezra Klein endorsed the Medicare Extra plan as superior to Biden’s original health-care proposal for a so-called “public option.” Towards the end of his analysis, Klein makes crystal clear why he supports this approach:

[Medicare Extra] creates a system that, while not single-payer, is far more integrated than anything we have now: A public system with private options, rather than a private system with fractured public options.

Medicare Extra, originally developed by the Center for American Progress and introduced in legislative form as the Medicare for America Act by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), goes beyond the Biden plan. Both would likely lead to a single-payer system, but Medicare Extra would do so much more quickly.

Biden’s original health care plan would create a government-run “option,” similar to Medicare, into which anyone could enroll. Individuals could use Obamacare subsidies (which Biden’s proposal would increase) to enroll in the government-run plan.

Notably, Biden’s proposal eliminates Obamacare’s subsidy “firewall,” in which anyone with an offer of “affordable” employer coverage does not qualify for subsidized exchange coverage. Removing this “firewall” will encourage a migration towards the exchanges, and the government-run plan.

By contrast, Medicare Extra would go three steps further in consolidating government-run care. First, it would combine existing government programs like Medicare and Medicaid into the new “Medicare Extra” rubric. Second, the legislation would automatically enroll people into Medicare Extra at birth, giving the government-run program an in-built bias, and a clear path towards building a coverage monopoly.

Third, Medicare Extra would not just allow individuals with an offer of employer-sponsored coverage to enroll in the Medicare Extra program, it would require the employer to “cash out” the dollar value of his contribution, and give those funds to the employee to fund that worker’s Medicare Extra plan.

The combination of this “cash out” requirement (not included in Biden’s proposal) and the other regulations on employer coverage included in Medicare Extra would result in a totally government-run system within a few short years. After all, if businesses have to pay the same amount to fund their employees’ coverage whether they maintain an employer plan or not, what incentive do they have to stay in the health insurance game?

Let Individuals Maintain Their Own Coverage

Both Biden’s proposals and Medicare Extra would consolidate additional power and authority within the government system—liberals’ ultimate objective. By contrast, the Trump administration has worked to give Americans access to options other than employer-provided insurance that individuals control, not the government.

Regulations finalized by the administration last year could in time revolutionize health insurance coverage. The rules allow for employers to provide tax-free contributions to employees through Health Reimbursement Arrangements, which workers can use to buy the health insurance plans they prefer. Best of all, employees will own these health plans, not the business, so they can take their coverage with them when they change jobs or retire.

It will of course take time for this transition to take root, as businesses learn more about Health Reimbursement Arrangements and workers obtain private insurance plans that they can buy, hold, and keep. But if allowed to flourish, this reform could remove Americans’ reliance on employers to provide health coverage, while preventing a further expansion of government meddling in our health-care system—both worthy objectives indeed.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

What John Oliver Didn’t Mention about Single Payer Health Care

During the first episode of this season of “Last Week Tonight,” HBO host John Oliver used his monologue to make the case for the United States to adopt a single-payer health-care system. While Oliver articulated many of the shortcomings of the current system, much of his arguments in favor of a single-payer system missed the mark.

As Oliver noted in his program, whether to adopt single payer represents a debate between the devil one knows and the devil one doesn’t. Skeptics of single payer have the advantage of inertial bias—that is, people may not want to give up what they currently have.

On the other hand, supporters of single payer can characterize the future however they like—even if it doesn’t always line up with the facts. That dynamic has allowed supporters to frame single-payer health-care as “Medicare for All,” even though the legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would abolish the current Medicare program.

In his program, Oliver acknowledged some of the trade-offs associated with a move to a government-financed health-care system. But he also minimized others, and failed to explain some of the fundamental flaws in Sanders’ approach.

Cost Explosion

Oliver’s segment attempted to tackle the three primary critiques of a single-payer system: It will cost too much; lead to lines and waiting lists for care; and undermine individual choice. On the cost front, Oliver noted that estimates will vary as to whether the Sanders bill will lead to an increase in overall health-care spending. After admitting that the bill could either reduce health spending or cost “a f-ck of a lot more,” Oliver basically threw up his hands, calling the exact amount of spending under the new system unknowable.

On this front, Oliver didn’t analyze why health costs would likely rise under single payer. He mentioned (correctly) that Sanders’s bill would essentially abolish all premiums, deductibles, and co-payments for health care in the United States, making the new system much more generous than the current Medicare program, and much more generous than single-payer systems in places like Canada and Great Britain.

But Oliver did not mention four critical words that majorly affect costs: “Induced demand for care.” In other words, because Sanders’ legislation would make all health care “free” to patients, they would demand much more of it. According to the Urban Institute, a liberal think-tank, a single-payer system that eliminated cost-sharing would result in nearly $1 trillion more in health spending per year than a single-payer system that retained a system of co-pays and deductibles roughly equivalent to Obamacare’s Gold health insurance plans.

Along with many liberals, Oliver views eliminating cost-sharing as a feature of Sanders’ single-payer proposal. But at containing the costs of such a system, it represents a major bug—one Oliver never acknowledged.

Waiting Lists

Oliver did concede that waiting lists for care exist in other countries’ single-payer systems. However, he contended that patients wait primarily for non-emergency care, using knee replacements as an example. (Many patients wouldn’t call the concept of waiting nearly 10 months for a knee replacement—the average wait in Canada for an orthopedic procedure—a non-urgent matter.) He also didn’t point out that 4.56 million individuals in Britain—roughly 7 percent of that country’s population—were on waiting lists for care as of last fall, an increase of roughly 40 percent in the past five years.

Oliver’s discussion of waiting lists also missed a critical point: Sanders’s legislation would go further than other countries with single-payer systems, because it would prohibit individuals from purchasing private health insurance. Canadian and British patients who object to government waiting lists can purchase private coverage, and obtain care via that route.

Under Sanders’s proposal, American patients would not have that choice: They could only opt-out of the single payer system by paying for their treatment entirely in cash. Because not even a family making several hundred thousand dollars per year could afford the full costs of a heart transplant or chemotherapy, the vast majority of Americans would have no choice but to wait for care until the government system got around to treating them.

Choice

That brings up Oliver’s discussion of choice, and whether taking choice away matters. He points out—rightly—that many Americans do not have a substantive choice of either insurers or doctors, because their employers control the former, and by definition the latter.

But it doesn’t require the federal government taking over the entire health-care system to solve this problem, and give Americans a true choice among insurance plans and doctors. I have pointed out on many occasions the ways the Trump administration has acted to make coverage more portable, so that individuals, not employers, and not the federal government, choose the coverage options they prefer.

Oliver talks about the choices some patients currently face: whether to seek treatment they cannot pay for, or rationing medicines based on cost grounds. But patients would face similar choices under a government-run system—just for different reasons.

Oliver acknowledged the likelihood of waiting lists under a single-payer system, as have other supporters. For instance, the head of the People’s Policy Project has argued that costs won’t rise under single payer because “there is still a hard limit to just how much health care can be performed because there are only so many doctors and only so many facilities.” In other words, people will seek care, but not be able to obtain it.

In such circumstances, people won’t have a “choice” at all. Because they cannot purchase private insurance to cover treatments the government plan does not, they can either wait for care or they can…wait for care. That’s not just not giving patients choices, it’s harming patients by prohibiting them from buying the insurance they want to buy with their own money.

Towards the end of the segment, Oliver revealed his own bias against giving American patients any choices. After a clip of former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s claim that “I trust Americans to make that right choice” on health care, Oliver responded to laughs: “Okay, well, hold on there. You trust Americans to make the right choice? You know Americans choose to drink Bud Light, right?”

Even as he tries to rebut conservative claims that single-payer would undermine Americans’ choices, Oliver admits that he doesn’t really want to give Americans a choice at all. He would rather use government to impose his beliefs on others, and force them to comply.

At minimum, Oliver’s program acknowledged the very real trade-offs associated with a single-payer health-care system. But had he explained those trade-offs fully, the American people would understand why single payer would result in adverse consequences to both our health-care system and our economy as a whole.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

No, $400 in Routine Health Care Costs is Not a Reason to Socialize Medicine

Sometimes, even heated discussions on Twitter can bring both light and heat by illuminating policy discussions. On Wednesday evening, Elizabeth Bruenig wrote a since-deleted tweet, using her transition from a writing position at the Washington Post to one at The New York Times to argue for single-payer health-care system:

Vance made a compelling point on policy, but one that conflated two issues. I wholeheartedly agree with his position on wanting to make coverage portable. But I don’t believe that a movement to de-link health coverage from employment means the government should pay for the health costs of comparatively affluent individuals.

Need for Portability

In her tweet, Bruenig admitted her period of uninsurance came from switching jobs. As a mother of two, including a newborn, Bruenig quite likely—and understandably—arranged some time between her two positions to spend with her young children.

On that front, I agree with both Bruenig and Vance about the good policy reasons to move away from individuals obtaining health coverage from their employers. As I outlined in prior writings, much of the problem of pre-existing conditions comes from our employer-based health insurance system: When you lose your job, you lose your coverage, which causes understandable worry for employees who have pre-existing conditions.

Making health coverage portable would allow individuals to take their insurance from job to job. This change would eliminate the friction people like Bruenig face when they’re between jobs, and greatly reduce (but not eliminate) the problem of pre-existing conditions, because people who develop such conditions during their working careers would own their own coverage, purchased before they became ill. The Trump administration has taken big strides on that front, publishing a regulation that will allow individuals—not their employers—to select and own their own health coverage, while still receiving an employer subsidy to cover some or all of the cost of their premiums.

However, people on the left talk about making health coverage portable not by giving power to individuals but by giving power to government. To borrow a medical metaphor, most liberals and socialists focus on the symptom (pre-existing conditions) rather than the underlying disease (lack of portable insurance). They favor either government regulation regarding pre-existing conditions, which encourages people to wait until they become sick to buy insurance, or in Bruenig’s case, an entirely government-run system.

Affordability for Individuals—And Taxpayers

While I agree with both Bruenig and Vance on the need to improve coverage portability (even if I disagree with the former on the way to go about it), I disagree in this instance about the separate question of who should pay for those costs.

But context matters, and in this case, the context looks quite different. Bruenig’s husband Matt also works; a former attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, he heads the People’s Policy Project, a socialist think-tank. As a result, their family has a second source of income, and another source of employer-based health insurance. (While Bruenig referenced health bills for her children, she didn’t say that her children faced an insurance gap. Given that context, I assume, but do not know for certain, that her husband’s insurance covers her children.)

Consider also the most recent breakdown of IRS tax filing data by income. As of 2017, households with adjusted gross income exceeding $97,870 represented the top quintile (i.e., top 20 percent) of filers, and households with adjusted gross income exceeding $145,135 represented the top 10 percent of filers. Bruenig and her husband almost certainly exceed the threshold to put themselves in the top 20 percent, and quite possibly the top 10 percent as well. Do I believe someone with that kind of income should receive government assistance for health insurance costs? In a word, no.

I haven’t yet completed my tax returns for 2019, but based on my paperwork compiled to date, I expect to declare just over $100,000 in income from my business last year. Of course, because I run my own business, I have to pay my own health insurance premiums. And my age (I’m roughly ten years older than Bruenig) means I pay more in premiums for Obamacare exchange coverage than she would if she bought temporary insurance there—and I do it month after month, not just when I have a gap between jobs.

In short, the Twitter mob calling me an “elite” for my tone and comments about savings ignore the fact that, based upon their station in life, Bruenig and her husband qualify on that front too. Unlike them, however, I don’t believe the federal government has a place subsidizing my insurance costs.

A Question of Priorities

I’ll give the last word to a Democrat: Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer. As I mentioned in my book, in 2009, Hoyer, then as now the House majority leader, took to the House floor to make this compelling statement about entitlement spending and federal priorities:

At some point in time, my friends, we have to buck up our courage and our judgement and say, if we take care of everybody, we won’t be able to take care of those who need us most. That’s my concern. If we take care of everybody, irrespective of their ability to pay for themselves, the Ross Perots of America, frankly, the Steny Hoyers of America, then we will not be able to take care of those most in need in America. [Emphasis added.]

I agree with both Vance and Bruenig on the need to make health coverage more portable. But on the separate question of who pays, and saving scarce taxpayer resources for those who need them most, I stand with Hoyer.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

November Debate Outs Democrats’ Health Care Double Speak

Ten Democratic candidates took the stage in Atlanta for the latest presidential debate on Wednesday evening, and as with the past several debates, health care played an important role. The attack lines echoed debates past: Progressives like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pledged support for full-fledged socialized medicine, while so-called “moderates” like former Vice President Joe Biden expressed opposition to taking away Americans’ existing health plans, and raising taxes by tens of trillions of dollars to do so.

Several contradictions emerged. First, as in debates past, the controversy seemed focused more on tactics than on strategyhow quickly to take away Americans’ health insurance, rather than whether the United States should ultimately end up with a system of socialized medicine.

Warren’s Unrealistic Promises

Early in the debate, Warren tried to square the circle into which she has put herself, by first releasing a plan for full-on single payer, and then releasing a second “transition” plan last Friday. In the latter plan, Warren pledged she would pass not one but two separate major pieces of health care legislation through Congress—the first within her 100 days, the second within three years.

Warren claimed that she would provide access to “free” health care for 135 million Americans within her first 100 days in office. That number comes from the populations that she pledged in last week’s plan would have immediate access to a Medicare-type single-payer system without premiums or cost sharing: Those with incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $51,500 for a family of four), and all children under age 18.

The idea that Warren can introduce, let alone pass, such massive legislation within 100 days—by April 30, 2021—seems unrealistic at best. By way of comparison, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee—the first committee to mark up the legislation that became Obamacare—did not even introduce its version of the bill until June 9, 2009, well after Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office. Barack Obama did not sign Obamacare into law until March 23, 2010, 427 days after his inauguration.

Drafting and passing a bill providing “free” health care to only 135 million people (as opposed to more than 300 million in full-on single payer) would in and of itself represent one of the largest and costliest pieces of legislation—if not the largest and costliest piece of legislation—ever considered by Congress. It would also require massive tax increases, which given the gimmicks in Warren’s plan would likely fall on the middle class.

The idea that Congress could pass such large legislation in only 100 days seems unrealistic at best, and an affront to democracy at worst. Underpinning this timetable lies the idea that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it,” because Democrats fear the ramifications of allowing the American people to understand the effects of their agenda before enacting it. In reality, however, trying to pass legislation that fast would quickly become a legislative morass for Warren, much like the political morass (of her own making) that she currently faces on health care.

Does Biden Believe in Choice?

Biden also spoke out of both sides of his mouth on health care. He claimed that 160 million Americans with employer-sponsored coverage like their current insurance, and that he trusts the American people to decide whether or not to join a government-run plan.

However, Biden also claimed that his plan would bring down costs and premiums for the American people. Those reductions can only materialize if people end up enrolling in the government-run health plan, because it would use raw government power to pay doctors and hospitals less.

On the one hand, Biden claims he believes in choice. But on the other hand, his rhetoric belies his desire for a given outcome, one in which people “choose” the government-run plan. As with Pete Buttigieg’s claim that a government-run plan would provide a “glide path” to single payer, both Biden’s rhetoric and the details of his plan show that he wants to sabotage private insurance to drive people into the government-run plan.

Forcing everyone into socialized medicine, and dissembling to voters while doing so: That’s the agenda the American people saw on display in Atlanta Wednesday evening.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Warren Advisor Admits Her Health Plan Raises Middle Class Taxes

That didn’t last long. Five days after Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a health plan (chock full of gimmicks) that she claimed would not raise taxes on the middle class, one of the authors of that plan contradicted her claims.

In an interview with Axios published on Wednesday, but which took place before the plan’s release, Warren advisor and former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick said the following:

Q: Many people may not know their employers cover 70% or more of their entire premium — money that otherwise would go to their pay. Is this the main problem when talking about reforms?

DB: The basics are not that complicated. Every single dollar — every nickel spent on health care in this country — is coming from workers. There’s no other source. [Emphasis mine.]

Compare that phraseology to what Joe Biden’s campaign spokesperson said on Friday about Warren’s plan and its effects:

For months, Elizabeth Warren has refused to say if her health care plan would raise taxes on the middle class, and now we know why: Because it does….Senator Warren would place a new tax of nearly $9 trillion that will fall on American workers. [Emphasis mine.]

In response to the Biden campaign’s criticism, Warren said last Friday that her health plan’s projections “were authenticated by President Obama’s head of Medicare”—meaning Berwick. Unfortunately for Warren, Berwick, by virtue of his comments in his interview with Axios, also “authenticated” Biden’s attack that her required employer contribution will hit workers, and thus middle-class families.

Warren also tried to defend her plan on Friday by claiming that “the employer contribution is already part of” Obamacare. Obamacare does include an employer contribution requirement, but that requirement:

  • Is capped at no more than $3,000 per worker, far less than the average employer contribution for workers’ health coverage—$14,561 for family coverage as of 2019— which will form the initial basis of Warren’s required employer contribution;
  • Does not apply to employers at all if the firm offers “affordable” coverage—an option not available under Warren’s plan, which would make private insurance coverage “unlawful;” and
  • Will raise an estimated $74 billion in the coming decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office—less than 1 percent of the $8.8 trillion Warren claims her required employer contribution would raise.

While Obamacare and Warrencare both have employer contributions, the similarities pretty much end there. Calling the two equal would equate a log cabin to Buckingham Palace. Sure, they’re both houses, but differ greatly in size. Warren’s “contribution”—which Berwick, her advisor, admits will fall on middle-class workers—stands orders of magnitude greater than anything in Obamacare.

Public Accountability?

In the same Axios interview, Berwick highlighted what he termed a tradeoff “between public accountability and private accountability.” He continued: “By not having a publicly accountable system, we are paying an enormous price in lack of transparency.”

His comments echo prior justification of his infamous “rationing with our eyes open” quote in a 2009 interview. As he explained to The New York Times as he departed CMS in late 2011, “Someone, like your health insurance company, is going to limit what you can get….The government, unlike many private health insurance plans, is working in the daylight. That’s a strength.”

Except that Berwick, as CMS administrator, went to absurd lengths to hide from public scrutiny after his series of remarks. He would gladly meet with health-care lobbyists behind closed doors, but refused to answer questions from reporters, going so far as to duck behind curtains and request security escorts to avoid doing so.

Warren apparently has taken a lesson in opacity from Berwick’s time as CMS administrator. At first, she avoided releasing a specific health care proposal at all, only to follow up by issuing a “plan” containing so many absurd assumptions as to render it irrelevant as a serious blueprint for legislating.

Unfortunately for her, however, Berwick committed the unforgivable sin of speaking an inconvenient truth about the effects of her proposal. Eight years after leaving office as CMS administrator, Berwick, however belated and however unwittingly, delivered some much-needed public accountability for Warren’s health plan.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Analyzing the Gimmicks in Warren’s Health Care Plan

Six weeks ago, this publication published “Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan…For Avoiding Your Health Care Questions.” That plan came to fruition last Friday, when Warren released a paper (and two accompanying analyses) claiming that she can fund her single-payer health care program without raising taxes on the middle class.

Both her opponents in the Democratic presidential primary and conservative commentators immediately criticized Warren’s plan for the gimmicks and assumptions used to arrive at her estimate. Her paper claims she can reduce the 10-year cost of single payer—the amount of new federal revenues needed to fund the program, over and above the dollars already spent on health care (e.g., existing federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)—from $34 trillion in an October Urban Institute estimate to only $20.5 trillion. On top of this 40 percent reduction in the cost of single payer, Warren claims she can raise the $20.5 trillion without a middle-class tax increase.

Separating Fact from Fiction on Trump’s Health Care Proclamation for Immigrants

On Friday, President Trump issued a proclamation requiring certain immigrants entering the country either to purchase health insurance, or demonstrate they can pay their medical bills. The order prompted no small amount of hysteria from the left over the weekend.

If you’re puzzled by this development, you might not be the only one. After all, don’t liberals want everyone to have health insurance? They have spent significant time and effort attacking President Trump for a (slight) increase in the number of uninsured people while he’s been president.

What the Proclamation Says

The proclamation itself, which will take effect on November 3 (30 days from Friday), limits “the entry into the United States as immigrants of aliens who will financially burden” the American health care system. It requires aliens applying for immigrant visas to become “covered by approved health insurance…within 30 days” of entry, or “possess…the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.”

The proclamation includes numerous different acceptable forms of health insurance: employer plans (including association health plans and COBRA coverage), catastrophic plans, short-term limited duration insurance, coverage through Tricare or Medicare, or visitor health coverage lasting a minimum of 364 days. The list of acceptable forms of insurance does not, however, include subsidized Obamacare exchange plans, or Medicaid coverage for individuals over age 18—likely because these options involve federal taxpayer subsidies.

What the Proclamation Doesn’t Say

It shouldn’t need stating outright, but contrary to claims that the proclamation constitutes a “racist attack on a community who deserves health care,” the order says not a word about a specific race, or national or ethnic group. It also exempts “any alien holding a valid immigrant visa issued before the effective date of this proclamation,” meaning the requirement will apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

Liberal reporters claimed that “the move effectively creates a health insurance mandate for immigrants,” after Republicans eliminated Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty. But this charge too ignores the fact that the proclamation—unlike Obamacare—includes an exception for those who “possess…the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.” (The proclamation does not define this term, meaning that the administration will presumably go through a rulemaking process to do so.)

The Real Story

Liberals’ hysteria over the issue demonstrates a massive shift leftward in recent years. Consider that in 1993, Hillary Clinton testified before Congress that she opposed extending benefits to “illegal aliens,” because it would encourage additional migration to the United States:

We do not think the comprehensive health care benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens. We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration into this country. We know now that too many people come in for medical care, as it is. We certainly don’t want them having the same benefits that American citizens are entitled to have.

Even in 2009, Barack Obama felt the need to claim that his health plan wouldn’t cover those in the country illegally (even if the claim didn’t stand up to scrutiny). The fact that Democrats have now gone far beyond Obama’s position, and have attacked President Trump for ensuring foreign citizens will not burden our health care system—a position liberals claim to support for Americans—speaks to the party’s full-on embrace of both socialism and open borders.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Skyrocketing Premiums Show Obamacare’s Failure to Deliver

According to a recently released report, extending employer-provided health coverage to the average American family equates to buying that family a moderately-priced car every single year. This provides further proof that Barack Obama “sold” a lemon to the American people in the form of Obamacare.

The inexorable rise in health care costs—a rise that candidate Obama pledged to reverse—shows how Obamacare has failed to deliver on its promise. Yet Democrats want to “solve” the problems Obamacare is making worse through even more government regulations, taxes, and spending. Struggling American families deserve relief from both the failed status quo, and Democrats’ desire to put that failed status quo on steroids.

Study of Employer Plans

Obamacare has failed to deliver on that pledge, as premiums continue to rise higher and higher:

Why has Obamacare failed to deliver? Several reasons stand out. First, its numerous regulatory requirements on insurance companies raised rates, in part by encouraging individuals to consume additional care.

The pre-existing condition provisions represent the prime driver of premium increases in the exchange market, according to a Heritage Foundation paper from last year. However, because employer-sponsored plans largely had to meet these requirements prior to Obamacare, they have less bearing on the increase in employer-sponsored premiums.

Second, Obamacare encouraged consolidation within the health care sector—hospitals buying hospitals, hospitals buying physician practices, physician practices merging, health insurers merging, and so on. While providers claim their mergers will provide better care to patients, they also represent a way for doctors and hospitals to demand higher payments from insurers. Reporting has shown how hospitals’ monopolistic practices drive up prices, raising rates for patients and employers alike.

Same Song, Different Verse

More Regulations: On issues like “surprise” billing or drug pricing, Democrats’ favored proposals would impose price controls on some or all segments of the health care industry. These price controls would likely limit the supply of care provided, while also reducing its quality.

More Spending: Most Democratic proposals, whether by presidential candidates, liberal think-tanks, or members of Congress, include major amounts of new spending to make health care “affordable” for the American people—an implicit omission that Obamacare (a.k.a. the “Affordable Care Act”) has not delivered for struggling families.

More Taxes: Even though some don’t wish to admit it, the Democratic candidates for president have all proposed plans that would necessitate major tax increases, from the hundreds of billions to the tens of trillions of dollars—even though at least two of those candidates have failed to pay new taxes imposed by Obamacare itself.

The latest increase in employer-sponsored health premiums demonstrates that hard-working families deserve better than Obamacare. It also illustrates why the American people deserve better than the new Democratic plans to impose more big government “solutions” in the wake of Obamacare’s failure.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Two Factors Behind the Medicaid Enrollment Explosion

While enrollment in Obamacare’s exchanges has fallen below original projections, largely due to unaffordable premiums for health insurance coverage, enrollment in its Medicaid expansion has exploded. By the end of 2016, enrollment in 24 states that expanded Medicaid enrollment to able-bodied adults exceeded the states’ original projections by an average of 110 percent.

New studies and data suggest two related reasons why: Ineligible individuals getting on (or staying on) the Medicaid rolls, and people dropping private coverage to enroll in Medicaid expansion.

Ineligible Enrollees

The study caused a political firestorm in Louisiana. Eventually, the state dropped approximately 30,000 individuals from the Medicaid expansion rolls. Ironically enough, the Medicaid program came in approximately $400 million under budget in the fiscal year ended June 30—due in large part to the enrollment purge. To put it another way, Louisiana taxpayers had spent $400 million in the prior fiscal year on ineligible Medicaid enrollees.

A study released this month provides new evidence that the phenomenon of ineligible enrollees may go far beyond Louisiana. The study examined Census data in states that expanded Medicaid when Obamacare’s expansion took effect in 2014 and compared it to states that have not expanded. Upon analyzing the data by income, the authors found that

There is strong evidence that Medicaid participation increased for groups for whom Medicaid was not intended to be the source of insurance coverage. Neither excluding those who might be categorically eligible [e.g., individuals with disabilities already eligible for Medicaid], nor focusing on those whose income was far from the threshold alters the fundamental results. The estimated program effect grows over time.

For instance, the authors found that for individuals making more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level—nearly double the eligibility threshold for Medicaid expansion—fully 65 percent of the gains in insurance coverage after Obamacare took effect came not from people enrolling in employer coverage or other insurance (e.g., exchange plans), but from increased Medicaid enrollment.

However, the scope of this phenomenon and the fact that it occurred comparatively high up the income scale suggests widespread problems with rooting out ineligible Medicaid enrollees. People could fail to report income increases to state authorities, improperly estimate their income when applying for coverage, or—as the authors suggest—friendly social workers could decide to cast potential enrollees’ circumstances in the best possible light when filling out application forms on their behalf.

Government Programs ‘Crowding Out’ Private Coverage

In other cases, Medicaid expansion appears to have accelerated the phenomenon of “crowd out,” whereby people drop their private coverage to enroll in government-funded benefits. Crowd out enrollees are not necessarily ineligible for benefits—that is, they meet income limits and other criteria for Medicaid—but every dollar spent on covering people who already had health insurance prior to expansion arguably represents a sub-optimal use of scarce taxpayer dollars.

As part of my work with the Pelican Institute, I recently reported that the Louisiana Department of Health compiled internal data showing that, once Medicaid expansion went into effect in the state in July 2016, several thousand individuals each month dropped their private coverage to go on Medicaid. The Department of Health, claiming the data inaccurate, stopped compiling it altogether late in 2017—even though their stated explanation for the inaccuracy meant their data arguably under-stated the number of individuals dropping coverage.

The data raise the obvious question of why states would want to follow Louisiana’s lead and spend hundreds of millions of dollars (at minimum) subsidizing individuals who previously had private insurance.

Will Congress Act?

The twin developments suggest a major role for Congress, to say nothing of the states, in combating these sizable expenditures on Medicaid waste, fraud, and abuse. More rigorous eligibility checks would help, for starters, as would the widespread adoption of a new Medicaid waiver program approved in Utah.

Beginning in January, the Utah waiver will require individuals with an offer of employer coverage to remain enrolled in that employer plan, with Medicaid reimbursing premiums—a change designed to avoid the crowd-out seen in Louisiana.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.