Let the Individual Mandate Die

In May New Jersey imposed a health-insurance mandate requiring all residents to buy insurance or pay a penalty. More states will feel pressure to follow suit in the coming year as the federal mandate’s penalty disappears Jan. 1 and state legislatures reconvene, some with new Democratic majorities intent on “protecting” Obamacare. But conflicts with federal law will make state-level health-insurance mandates ineffective or unduly onerous, and governors and legislatures would do well to steer clear.

While states can require citizens to purchase health coverage, they will have trouble ensuring compliance. Federal law prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from disclosing tax-return data, except under limited circumstances. And there is no clear precedent allowing the IRS to disclose coverage data to verify compliance with state insurance requirements.

Accordingly, mandates enacted in New Jersey and the District of Columbia earlier this year created their own coverage-reporting regimes. But those likely conflict with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which explicitly pre-empts “any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.” The point is to protect large employers who self-insure workers from 50 sets of conflicting state laws.

No employer has used ERISA to challenge Massachusetts’ 2006 individual mandate, which includes reporting requirements, but that doesn’t mean it’s legal. Last month a Brookings Institution paper conceded that “state requirements related to employer benefits like health coverage may be subject to legal challenge based on ERISA preemption.”

A 2016 Supreme Court ruling would bolster such a challenge. In Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, the court struck down a Vermont law that required employers to submit health-care payment claims to a state database. The court said the law was pre-empted by ERISA.

Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted the myriad reporting requirements under federal law. Vermont’s law required additional record-keeping. Justice Kennedy concluded that “differing, or even parallel, regulations from multiple jurisdictions could create wasteful administrative costs and threaten to subject plans to wide-ranging liability.”

Justice Kennedy’s opinion provides a how-to manual for employers to challenge state-level insurance mandates. A morass of state-imposed insurance mandates and reporting requirements would unnecessarily burden employers with costs and complexity. It cries out for pre-emptive relief.

Unfortunately, policy makers have ignored these concerns. Notes from the working group that recommended the District of Columbia’s individual mandate never mention the reporting burden or ERISA pre-emption. And in August the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved New Jersey’s waiver application that relied in part upon funding from that state’s new individual mandate, even though money from the difficult-to-enforce requirement may never materialize.

States already cannot require federal agencies to report coverage. This means their mandates won’t track the 2.3 million covered by the Indian Health Service, 9.3 million receiving health care from the Veterans Administration, 8.8 million disabled under age 65 who are enrolled in Medicare, 9.4 million military Tricare enrollees and 8.2 million federal employees and retirees.

If a successful ERISA challenge also exempts some of the 181 million with employer-based insurance from coverage-reporting requirements, state insurance mandates become farcical. States would have to choose between mandates that run on the “honor system”—thus likely rife with cheating—or taking so much time and energy to verify coverage that administration becomes prohibitively expensive.

States should take the hint and refrain from even considering their own coverage mandates. But if they don’t, smart employers should challenge the mandate’s reporting requirements. They’d likely win.

This post was originally published at The Wall Street Journal.

How Graham-Cassidy’s Funding Formula Gives Washington Unprecedented Power

The past several days have seen competing analyses over the block-grant funding formula proposed in health-care legislation by Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA). The bill’s sponsors have one set of spreadsheets showing the potential allocation of funds to states under their plan, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has another, and consultants at Avalere (funded in this case by the liberal Center for American Progress) have a third analysis quantifying which states would gain or lose under the bill’s funding formula.

So who’s right? Which states will end up the proverbial winners and losers under the Graham-Cassidy bill? The answer is simple: Nope.

While the bill’s proponents claim the legislation will increase state authority, in reality the bill gives unelected bureaucrats the power to distribute nearly $1.2 trillion in taxpayer dollars unilaterally. In so doing, the bill concentrates rather than diminishes Washington’s power—and could set the course for the “mother of all backroom deals” to pass the legislation.

A Complicated Spending Formula

To start with, the bill repeals Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and exchange subsidies, effective in January 2020. It then replaces those two programs with a block grant totaling $1.176 trillion from 2020 through 2026. All else equal, this set of actions would disadvantage states that expanded Medicaid, because the Medicaid expansion money currently being received by 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) would be re-distributed among all 50 states.

From there the formula gets more complicated. (You can read the sponsors’ description of it here.) The bill attempts to equalize per-person funding among all states by 2026, with funds tied to a state’s number of individuals with incomes between 50 percent and 138 percent of the poverty level.

Thus far, the formula carries a logic to it. For years conservatives have complained that Medicaid’s match rate formula gives wealthy states more incentives to draw down federal funds than poor states, and that rich states like New York and New Jersey have received a disproportionate share of Medicaid funds as a result. The bill’s sponsors claim that the bill “treats all Americans the same no matter where they live.”

Would that that claim were true. Page 30 of the bill demonstrates otherwise.

The Trillion-Dollar Loophole

Page 30 of the Graham-Cassidy bill, which creates a “state specific population adjustment factor,” completely undermines the rest of the bill’s funding formula:

IN GENERAL.—For calendar years after 2020, the Secretary may adjust the amount determined for a State for a year under subparagraph (B) or (C) and adjusted under subparagraphs (D) and (E) according to a population adjustment factor developed by the Secretary.

The bill does say that HHS must develop “legitimate factors” that affect state health expenditures—so it can’t allocate funding based on, say, the number of people who own red socks in Alabama. But beyond those two words, pretty much anything goes.

The bill says the “legitimate factors” for population adjustment “may include state demographics, wage rates, [and] income levels,” but it doesn’t limit the factors to those three characteristics—and it doesn’t limit the amount that HHS can adjust the funding formula to reflect those characteristics either. If a hurricane like Harvey struck Texas three years from now, Secretary Tom Price would be within his rights under the bill to cite a public health emergency and dedicate 100 percent of the federal grant funds—which total $146 billion in 2020—solely to Texas.

That scenario seems unlikely, but it shows the massive and virtually unprecedented power HHS would have under the bill to control more than $1 trillion in federal spending by executive fiat. To top it off, pages 6 through 8 of the bill create a separate pot of $25 billion — $10 billion for 2019 and $15 billion for 2020 — and tell the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator to “determine an appropriate procedure” for allocating the funds. That’s another blank check of $25,000,000,000 in taxpayer funds, given to federal bureaucrats to spend as they see fit.

Backroom Deals Ahead

With an unprecedented level of authority granted to federal bureaucrats to determine how much funding states receive, you can easily guess what’s coming next. Unnamed Senate staffers already invoked strip-club terminology in July, claiming they would “make it rain” on moderates with hundreds of billions of dollars in “candy.” Under the current version of the bill, HHS staff now have virtual carte blanche to promise all sorts of “state specific population adjustment factors” to influence the votes of wavering senators.

The potential for even more backroom deals than the prior versions of “repeal-and-replace” demonstrates the pernicious power that trillions of dollars in spending delivers to Washington. Draining the swamp shouldn’t involve distributing money from Washington out to states, whether under a simple formula or executive discretion. It should involve eliminating Washington’s role in doling out money entirely.

That’s what Republicans promised when they said they would repeal Obamacare—to end the law’s spending, not work on “spreading the wealth around.” That’s what they should deliver.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

On Health Care, Federalism to the Rescue

Temporary setbacks can often yield important knowledge that leads to more meaningful accomplishments—a lesson senators should remember while pondering the recent fate of their health-care legislation. This past week, frictions caused by federalism helped create the legislative stalemate, but the forces of federalism can also pave the way for a solution.

Moderates opposed to the bill raised two contradictory objections. Senators whose states expanded Medicaid lobbied hard to keep that expansion in their home states. Those same senators objected to repealing all of Obamacare’s insurance mandates and regulations, insisting that all other states keep adhering to a Washington-imposed standard.

The High Prices Are The Fault of Too Many Rules

As the Congressional Budget Office score of the legislation indicates, the lack of regulatory relief under the bill would create real problems in insurance markets. Specifically, CBO found that low-income individuals likely would not purchase coverage, because such individuals would face a choice between low-premium plans with unaffordable deductibles or low-deductible plans with unaffordable premiums.

The budget analysts noted that this affordability dilemma has its roots in Obamacare’s mandated benefits package. Because of the Obamacare requirements not repealed under the bill, insurers would be “constrained” in their ability to offer plans that, for instance, provide prescription drug coverage or coverage for a few doctor visits before meeting the (high) deductible.

CBO concluded that the waiver option available under the Senate bill would, if a state chose it, ease the regulatory constraints on insurers “at least somewhat.” But those waivers only apply to some—not all—of the Obamacare regulations, and could be subject to changes in the political climate. With governors able to apply for—and presumably withdraw from—the waiver program unilaterally, states’ policy decisions could swing rapidly, and in ways that exacerbate uncertainty and instability.

If You Want Obamacare, You Can Enact It at the State Level

On Medicaid, conservatives have already granted moderates significant concessions, allowing states to keep their expansions in perpetuity. The controversy now stems around whether the federal government should continue to keep paying states a higher federal match to cover childless adults than individuals with disabilities—a proposition that tests standards of fairness and equity.

However, critics of the bill’s changes to Medicaid raise an important point. As CBO noted, states “would not have additional flexibility” under the per capita caps created by the bill to manage their Medicaid programs. Without that flexibility, states might face greater pressure to find savings with a cleaver rather than a scalpel—cutting benefits, lowering reimbursement rates, or restricting eligibility, rather than improving care.

Several years ago, a Medicaid waiver granted to Rhode Island showed what flexibility can do for a state, reducing per-beneficiary spending for several years in a row by better managing care, not cutting it. When revising the bill, senators should give all Medicaid programs the flexibility Rhode Island received from the Bush administration when it applied for its waiver in 2009. They should also work to ensure that the bill will not fiscally disadvantage states that choose the additional flexibility of a block grant compared to the per capita caps.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Legislative Bulletin: H.R. 7174, James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act

Order of Business:  Reports indicate the bill is expected to be considered on Sunday, September 28, under floor procedures that have yet to be determined.

Summary:  H.R. 7174 would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish new federal entitlement programs for 9/11 workers related to health monitoring and treatments, and expand eligibility for the 9/11 victim compensation fund.  Specific details of the legislation include the following:

World Trade Center Health Program:  The bill would establish within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) a new program to provide medical monitoring, screening, and treatment to workers (including federal employees) who responded to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC), and residents of New York City “who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks.”  The program is intended to provide:

  • Medical monitoring for those exposed to airborne toxins or other hazards;
  • Screening for community members;
  • Treatment for “all medically necessary health and mental health care expenses (including necessary prescription drugs;)”
  • Outreach to potentially eligible individuals to inform them of benefits available;
  • Uniform data collection and monitoring; and
  • Research on health conditions arising from the World Trade Center attacks.

Specific details of the program include:

Payments:  H.R. 7174 provides that all health benefits provided under the program will be provided “without any deductibles, co-payments, or other cost-sharing.”  In cases where a worker is eligible for workman’s compensation, or holds other public or private health insurance coverage, the bill provides that the federal government’s WTC program shall serve as a secondary payer for such claims, similar to the Medicare Secondary Payer program for Medicare beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease.  The bill provides for the creation of quality control and anti-fraud elements within the new program, and incorporates existing anti-fraud penalties to the WTC program.

Advisory and Steering Committees:  The bill creates a scientific and technical advisory committee to provide expertise on eligibility criteria and WTC-related health conditions, and two steering committees—one for WTC responders, the other for community members—to co-ordinate the screening and treatment of eligible members.

Outreach:  The bill includes language requiring the Program Administrator—either the NIOSH Director or his designee—to establish a website, create partnerships with local agencies, and take other measures necessary to inform potentially eligible beneficiaries of the existence of the WTC program.

Centers of Excellence:  The bill directs the Administrator to enter into contracts with “Clinical Centers of Excellence” with respect to monitoring, treating, and counseling individuals related to WTC-related health conditions, and separate contracts with “Co-Ordinating Centers of Excellence” with respect to analyzing and reporting on relevant data and medical protocols.  The bill names the Clinical Centers of Excellence:

  • New York City Fire Department;
  • Mount Sinai co-ordinated consortium;
  • Queens College;
  • State University of New York at Stony Brook;
  • University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey;
  • Bellevue Hospital; and
  • Other hospitals identified by the Administrator.

The bill designates the New York Fire Department, the Mount Sinai co-ordinated consortium, and Bellevue Hospital as Co-ordinating Centers of Excellence.

H.R. 7174 would reimburse Clinical Centers of Excellence $600 annually per eligible participant in the treatment program, and an additional $300 annually per eligible participant in the monitoring program—amounts subject to an inflation index reflecting increases in medical costs in future years.  The bill provides that the payments will be made “regardless of the volume or cost of services required.”  The bill permits the Administrator to authorize payment levels for Co-ordinating Centers of Excellence, and requires a review and GAO study on payment levels within five years.

Eligibility for Responders Entitlement:  H.R. 7174 includes several categories of 9/11-related responders eligible for the new federal health care entitlement.  The bill would expand eligibility for the new entitlement to persons who “performed rescue, recovery, demolition, debris cleanup, or other related services in the New York City disaster area” and meet certain criteria with respect to airborne toxins.  H.R. 7174 also specifies categories of currently eligible individuals in line to receive the new health care entitlement, including:

  • New York City Fire Department employees who “participated at least one day in the rescue and recovery effort at any of the former World Trade sites (including Ground Zero, Staten Island landfill, and the New York City Chief Medical Examiner’s office” at any point between September 11, 2001 and July 31, 2002;
  • Surviving immediate family members of New York City firefighters killed on September 11 at the World Trade Center who received mental health treatment related to their loss—but such individuals are only subject to the new entitlement with respect to mental health treatments;
  • Participants in the WTC cleanup efforts in Lower Manhattan, the Staten Island landfill, or the barge loading piers who worked:
    • At least 4 hours between September 11 and September 14, 2001;
    • At least 24 hours between September 11 and September 30, 2001; or
    • At least 80 hours between September 11, 2001, and July 31, 2002;
  • Workers in the New York City Medical Examiner’s office;
  • Workers in the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation tunnel who worked at least 24 hours between February 1, 2002, and July 1, 2002; and
  • Vehicle maintenance workers exposed to debris “while maintaining vehicles contaminated by airborne toxins” related to the WTC attacks during the time periods outlined above.

The bill includes provisions for an application process lasting no more than 60 days, and an appeal to an administrative law judge in cases where applications are initially denied.

The bill limits the number of beneficiaries to a maximum of 15,000 who at any time qualify for the program, but exempts from the numerical cap those beneficiaries receiving treatment for an identified WTC-related condition at the time of the bill’s enactment.

H.R. 7174 also includes language providing that, in the event that the program’s expenditures are less than 90% of Congressional Budget Office projections as of December 1, 2011, and January 1, 2015, the Administrator may increase the number of eligible participants to meet the CBO expenditure estimates.

Conditions Eligible for Treatment:  The bill defines a WTC-related health condition as “an illness or health condition for which exposure to airborne toxins, any other hazard, or any other adverse condition resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center…is substantially likely to be a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the illness or health condition,” or a mental health condition “substantially likely to be a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the condition.”  The bill includes a list of aerodigestive (i.e. asthma and other pulmonary conditions), musculoskeletal, and mental health diseases (including post-traumatic stress disorder) that qualify for treatment.

H.R. 7174 also includes an application process to add additional illnesses subject to review by the Administrator and the Advisory Committees, and permits physicians at Clinical Centers of Excellence to receive federal payments for treatments for WTC-related diseases not yet identified as such under the provisions above, subject to a subsequent determination by the Administrator as to whether or not the condition will be added to the eligible list of diseases.

Standards for Treatment:  The bill limits treatments paid for by the federal government to medically necessary standards, including those that are “not primarily for the convenience of the patient or physician…and not more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results.”

The bill provides for review by “a federal employee designated by the WTC Program Administrator” with respect to determinations of WTC-related health conditions, and includes provisions requiring an appeals process before an administrative law judge with respect to the Administrator’s certification of individuals’ claims for treatment, and a separate appeals process before a physician panel with respect to medical necessity determinations.

Payment Levels:  H.R. 7174 provides that payments to physicians and other medical providers shall generally be based upon reimbursement levels under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), which governs federal workman’s compensation claims.  The bill also includes language establishing a competitive bidding process among vendors to govern pharmaceutical purchases by eligible beneficiaries, and permits the Administrator to designate reimbursement rates for other services not referenced in the bill language.  The bill requires New York City and its public hospitals to contribute a 10% match in order to be eligible to receive payment for treatment services rendered.

Eligibility for Community Entitlement:  H.R. 7174 creates a separate entitlement for various segments of the community affected by the World Trade Center attacks.  Eligible groups of individuals include:

  • “A person who was present in the New York City disaster area in the dust or dust cloud on September 11, 2001;”
  • Individuals who “worked, resided, or attended school, child care, or adult day care in the New York City disaster area” for at least four days between September 11, 2001 and January 10, 2002—or at least 30 days between September 11, 2001 and July 31, 2002;
  • “Any person who worked as a clean-up worker or performed maintenance work in the New York City disaster area” between September 11, 2001 and January 10, 2002 “and had extensive exposure to WTC dust as a result of such work;”
  • Individuals residing or having a place of employment in the New York City disaster area between September 11, 2001 and May 31, 2003, and deemed eligible to receive grants from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation; and
  • Any individuals receiving treatment at the World Trade Center Environmental Health Center as of the date of the bill’s enactment.

The bill includes an application and certification process for community beneficiaries similar to that for responder beneficiaries discussed above.  The bill limits the number of beneficiaries to a maximum of 15,000 who at any time qualify for the program, but exempts from the numerical cap those beneficiaries receiving treatment for an identified WTC-related condition at the time of the bill’s enactment.  As a result, CBO estimates that, between the community entitlement and the responder entitlement discussed above, about 80,000 people would receive these new WTC-related entitlements to obtain benefits for respiratory and mental health treatments, increasing mandatory spending by $4.6 billion over ten years.

Beneficiaries under the community-based entitlement would generally receive the same benefits and treatments as the WTC responders, except that the community-based entitlement does not include musculoskeletal disorders in the list of identified health conditions (although some or all of these could be added under the process described above).

Treatment for Other Individuals:  H.R. 7174 establishes an additional capped entitlement fund to finance care for “WTC community members”—i.e. those living in the New York disaster area at the time of the September 11 attacks, but not meeting the criteria listed above—diagnosed with an identified WTC-related health condition.  The bill caps such entitlement spending at $20 million in Fiscal Year 2009, rising annually according to medical inflation rates.

Care Outside New York:  The bill would require the Administrator to “establish a nationwide network of health care providers” to treat eligible recipients outside the New York City metropolitan area, subject to certain reporting and quality requirements.

Research:  The bill would require the WTC Administrator to establish an epidemiological research program on health conditions arising from the World Trade Center attacks.  The program would cover diagnosis and treatment of WTC-related health conditions among responders and in sample populations from Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, “to identify potential for long-term adverse health effects in less exposed populations.”  H.R. 7174 authorizes $15 million annually for such research.  In addition, the bill authorizes $7 million annually for New York City to maintain a WTC Health Registry, as well as $8.5 million for grants to the New York Department of Mental Health and Mental Hygiene for WTC-related mental health treatment.

Changes to September 11 Compensation Fund:  In addition to establishing the new NIOSH program, H.R. 7174 would also make several changes to the September 11 victim compensation fund established in 2001 (Title IV of P.L. 107-42), as listed below.

Extension for Applications:  H.R. 7174 would reopen applications to the September 11 compensation fund in cases where the Special Master for the compensation fund determines that the individual became aware of physical injuries suffered as a result of the September 11 attacks after applications to the compensation fund were closed.  The bill would generally reopen applications for the reasons stated above (and for individuals subject to the expanded eligibility provisions noted below) for two years after the individual became aware of such injuries, provided the individual seeks treatment in a prompt manner and the claim can be verified.  Additional claims applications under this extension would be accepted through December 22, 2031.

Expansion of Eligibility Definitions:  The bill would modify the definition of eligibility for compensation to define the “immediate aftermath” of the September 11 attacks as including time through August 30, 2002.  The bill would also expand eligibility to include workers handling debris from the World Trade Center, including “any area contiguous to a site of [the 9/11] crashes that the Special Master determines was sufficiently close to the site that there was a demonstrable risk of physical harm” and “any area related to, or along, routes of debris removal,” including (but not limited to) the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island.  The Congressional Budget Office notes that the provisions in the bill “would significantly increase the number of individuals who could seek compensation from the fund,” resulting in an estimated 18,000 additional individuals receiving federal compensation benefits averaging $350,000 each—increasing mandatory spending by nearly $6.4 billion over ten years.  According to Justice Department statistics, this figure would represent a nearly seven-fold increase from the 2,852 personal injury claims originally filed during the 2001-03 period. (See “Additional Background” below.)

Applicability to Pending Lawsuits:  H.R. 7174 would require debris workers or other individuals with pending legal claims relating to 9/11-related injuries, and wishing to seek compensation from the victim compensation fund, to withdraw those legal actions within 90 days after updated regulations regarding the fund application extension are promulgated.  The bill would permit individuals whose applications are denied by the Special Master subsequently to reinstitute their legal claims without prejudice within 90 days of the ineligibility determination—a right not granted to fund applications during the original 2001-03 application period.

Limited Liability:  H.R. 7174 limits the liability for construction and related contractors regarding workers’ claims to the sum of the funds available in the WTC Captive Insurance Company, an amount not exceeding $350 million from New York City, and the amount of all available insurance held by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the relevant contractors and sub-contractors.  According to the Republican staff of the Judiciary Committee, this amount would total approximately $2 billion in funds available to pay legal claims.

Tax Increases:  H.R. 7174 includes several tax provisions designed to pay for the entitlement created in the bill, including

Economic Substance Doctrine:  The bill codifies the “economic substance doctrine” used in certain court decisions, which prohibits businesses from making certain free-market business decisions (and from taking the related tax benefits) based solely on tax-lowering motives.  The bill would also impose a 20% penalty on understatements attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance (40% in cases where certain facts are not disclosed).  In other words, under this provision, companies could be assessed tax penalties for engaging in business transactions aimed primarily at lowering their tax bills beginning on the date of this bill’s enactment.

Increased Taxes on Domestic Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations:  H.R. 7174 denies certain U.S. subsidiaries of multinational companies the benefits of tax treaties in certain circumstances.  When a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign-owned company makes certain tax-deductible payments (like interest, rents, and royalties) to a related party located in another country, the U.S. imposes a tax on those payments.  The default rate is 30%, but this rate can be reduced, sometimes down to 0%, by tax treaties.  The U.S. has 58 tax treaties with 66 different countries.  This bill would deny the U.S. subsidiary the benefits of the negotiated treaty rate when those tax-deductible payments are made by the subsidiary to a related foreign company, if the ultimate parent of the multinational company is based in a country that does not have a tax treaty with the U.S.

Corporate Estimated Tax Timing Gimmick.  This provision would increase the estimated tax payments that certain corporations must remit to the federal government.  Under current law, corporations with assets of at least $1 billion must make equally divided estimated tax payments for each quarter.  This legislation would increase the payment due for the third quarter of calendar-year 2013 by 5 percentage points.  (If each regular quarterly payment is 100% of what is owed, this additional payment would be 105% of what would otherwise be owed.)  The payment due for the fourth quarter of calendar-year 2013 (i.e. the 1st quarter of fiscal-year 2014) would be reduced accordingly so that the corporations pay no net increase in estimated payments in calendar-year 2013.  This provision is merely a revenue timing shift, a gimmick used to comply with the House’s PAYGO rules, yet would have real-world implications, as it forces certain companies to pay more of their tax payments earlier.  Given the time value of money, there’s little doubt that requiring bigger, earlier payments would harm the bottom lines of qualified corporations.

Additional Background on 9/11 Compensation Fund:  As noted above, Title IV of Public Law 107-42 authorized payments by the federal government to individuals injured or killed as a result of the September 11 attacks; eligible individuals (victims injured and families of individuals killed in the attacks) received $7 billion in payments before the fund closed in 2004.  Justice Department statistics note that during its operation, the fund issued award letters to 5,562 families whose relatives were killed in the September 11 attacks, and to 2,682 claimants suffering personal injuries as a result of the attacks.

While the process created under the law, and administered by Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, was praised by many victims’ families, Members of Congress, and outside experts as fair and judicious, proponents of H.R. 7174 assert that first responders who worked at the World Trade Center site have incurred respiratory and other injuries as a result of the toxins inhaled at Ground Zero—but that these conditions only became manifest after the application period provided for in P.L. 107-42 expired.  Title II of H.R. 7174 would therefore seek to reopen the compensation fund to allow these workers, and other individuals, to make claims for compensation.

However, asked by Judiciary Committee Republican staff to comment on a proposed draft of Title II, former Special Master Feinberg responded with an e-mail noting several concerns with the approach taken by the bill sponsors and the majority.  These concerns included:

  • An extension of the eligibility definition of “immediate aftermath” from the first four days following September 11 (as prescribed in regulations creating the compensation fund) to August 30, 2002— which could result in “a huge influx of additional claims” and could cause some individuals to re-apply for compensation;
  • Language that “vastly extends [the fund’s] geographic scope,” potentially leading to “thousands and thousands of additional claimants” and causing additional individuals to re-apply for compensation;
  • An extension of the filing period until 2031—“no latent claims need such an extended date;”
  • Provisions requiring the Special Master to determine when an individual first knew or should have known about their injuries—“how can the Special Master possibly make that determination?” and
  • Language permitting individuals denied eligibility for compensation to return to the tort system and re-file their claims—a right which was specifically denied as a pre-condition for initial applicants of the 9/11 fund, but which some who were denied compensation by the Special Master may now attempt to exercise.

Republican Committee staff notes that, to the extent the 9/11 compensation fund is re-opened at all, Mr. Feinberg recommends that it be done solely to allow first responders with diseases not manifest at the time of the initial application period to receive compensation—language that would be much narrower in scope than the provisions discussed above.  Particularly given that payments made pursuant to the 9/11 compensation fund constitute mandatory spending, conservatives may agree with the former Special Master that any potential changes considered by Congress should be narrow in scope and designed to ensure that first responders receive reasonable compensation in a manner that uses federal taxpayer dollars prudently.

Committee Action:  H.R. 7174 was introduced on July 24, 2008 and referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and the Budget, none of which took official action.

Possible Conservative Concerns:  Several aspects of H.R. 7174 may raise concerns for conservatives, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:

  • Tax Increase.  In order to pay for the more than $10 billion cost of this new federal entitlement, H.R. 7174 would codify the economic substance doctrine, under which companies could be assessed tax penalties for engaging in legitimate business transactions aimed primarily at lowering their tax bills.  Some conservatives may therefore be concerned that this provision, and other tax hikes in H.R. 7174, would increase taxes on Americans in order to pay for new federal entitlement spending.
  • Creates Multiple New Federal Entitlements.  H.R. 7174 would establish several new federal entitlement programs to provide health benefits to 80,000 people according to the Congressional Budget Office, and re-open the 9/11 compensation fund to an additional 18,000 personal injury claims.  Some conservatives may be concerned that, with Congress contemplating a $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, now is not an appropriate time to be creating new mandatory spending programs.
  • Mandatory Spending Earmarks to New York Hospitals.  The bill establishes “Centers of Excellence” related to treatment of WTC-related conditions, and provides for payment of up to $900 annually per eligible beneficiary to certain named New York City hospitals and institutions as Clinical Centers of Excellence, “regardless of the volume or cost of services required.”  Some conservatives may be concerned first that this language constitutes a legislative earmark for mandatory spending, and second that the hospitals named could receive federal payments under this earmark without performing a single service for WTC victims.
  • No Restrictions on Trial Lawyers.  While H.R. 7174 does cap liability for legal claims arising from the September 11 cleanup at the sum of all available insurance funds, the bill does not include language placing restraints on attorney contingency fees or other legal expenses.  The bill also permits individuals who file personal injury claims with the 9/11 fund under the new criteria, yet have their applications denied, to reinstate their lawsuits without prejudice.  Some conservatives may be concerned that these provisions may lead to additional lawsuits and funds flowing to trial lawyers as opposed to 9/11 victims awarded compensation.
  • Overly Broad Eligibility Standards.  H.R. 7174 includes expansive definitions of eligibility for the entitlements under the bill, including individuals who worked or volunteered in the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office for as little as one day, or who were present along “routes of debris removal.”  Some conservatives may echo the concerns of former Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, who expressed unease at the implications of re-opening the 9/11 compensation fund to create what CBO estimates would be a nearly seven-fold increase in the number of personal injury awards when compared to the original 2001-03 application period.
  • Overly Generous Health Benefits.  H.R. 7174 explicitly states that all health care provided shall not include any form of cost-sharing for beneficiaries, and reimburses providers at rates established by the Federal Employee Compensation Act—which according to Administration sources pays providers at much higher rates than Medicare.  These provisions, coupled with the additional earmarked per capita payments to hospitals discussed above, may cause some conservatives concern that the bill lacks any meaningful cost-containment mechanisms for this new federal entitlement, which could encourage providers and patients alike to spend taxpayer money extravagantly.
  • Process.  This 120-page bill creating a new federal entitlement includes matter under the jurisdiction of at least four congressional committees—none of which has marked up the legislation.  Some conservatives may be concerned that these new federal entitlement programs deserve proper consideration under regular order—not a rushed proceeding as the House prepares to conclude its work for the year.

Administration Position:  A Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on H.R. 7174 was not available at press time; however, reports indicate the White House has numerous concerns with the bill.

Cost to Taxpayers:  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 7174 would increase mandatory spending by just under $11 billion over ten years.  Title I provides a new entitlement to health benefits, and CBO estimates that about 80,000 people would receive this new WTC-related entitlement to obtain benefits for respiratory and mental health treatments.  CBO estimates that this entitlement would increase mandatory spending by $1.8 billion over five years, and $4.6 billion over ten years, net of a 10% payment by the City of New York and other recoupment from beneficiaries’ health insurance, workers compensation benefits, or other forms of third party payment.

Title II of H.R. 7174 would re-open and expand eligibility for the September 11 compensation fund, which paid out $7 billion in claims to victims before closing in 2004.  CBO notes that the provisions in the bill “would significantly increase the number of individuals who could seek compensation from the fund,” resulting in an estimated 18,000 additional individuals receiving federal compensation benefits averaging $350,000 each—13,000 emergency workers and 5,000 area residents.  CBO estimates this provision would cost $5.5 billion over five years, and nearly $6.4 billion over ten.

The bill’s new mandatory spending is paid for by tax increases—including the codification of the economic substance doctrine—as well as a timing shift budgetary gimmick with respect to estimated corporate tax payments, as explained above.

The bill also includes authorizations for discretionary spending, totaling $30.5 million annually “for each fiscal year.”

Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government?:  Yes, the bill would create two new health entitlement programs for 9/11 workers and community members, and expand eligibility for—and re-open applications to—the September 11 compensation fund, further increasing mandatory spending.

Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates?:  No.

Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?:  A committee report citing compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI was unavailable.

Constitutional Authority:  A committee report citing Constitutional authority was unavailable.

SCHIP Enrollment

Background:  The State Children’s Health Insurance Program, established under the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, is a state-federal partnership originally designed to provide low-income children with health insurance—specifically, those children under age 19 from families with incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), or approximately $40,000 for a family of four.  States may implement SCHIP by expanding Medicaid and/or creating a new state SCHIP program.  In addition, states may expand eligibility requirements by submitting state plan amendments and/or Section 1115 waiver requests to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).[1]  SCHIP received nearly $40 billion in funding over ten years as part of BBA, and legislation recently passed by Congress in December (P.L. 110-173) extended the program through March 2009, while providing additional SCHIP funds for states.

One concern of many conservatives regarding the SCHIP program relates to crowd-out—a phenomenon whereby individuals who had previously held private health insurance drop that coverage in order to enroll in a public program.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of H.R. 3963, a five-year SCHIP reauthorization which the President vetoed (and the House failed to override), found that of the 5.8 million children who would obtain Medicaid or SCHIP coverage under the legislation, more than one-third, or 2 million, would do so by dropping private health insurance coverage.

In order to prevent policies that encourage crowd-out, and ensure that SCHIP funds are more effectively allocated to the low-income beneficiaries for whom the program was created, CMS on August 17, 2007 issued guidance to state health officials about the way it would evaluate waiver proposals by states to expand their SCHIP programs.  Among other provisions, the letter stated that CMS would require states seeking to expand coverage to children with family incomes above 250% of FPL must first enroll 95% of eligible children below 200% of FPL, consistent with the original design and intent of the SCHIP program.  Congressional Democrats have introduced both a bill (H.R. 5998) and a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (S. J. Res. 44) designed to repeal the Administration’s guidance.

Enrollment of Wealthier Children:  An analysis performed by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), using data provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), provides some indication of the extent to which states are focusing their efforts on enrolling poor children first before expanding their SCHIP programs up the income ladder.  Comparison of Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 data reveal that in FY06, an estimated 586,117 children from families with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty level—approximately $41,000 for a family of four—were covered under SCHIP by a total of 15 states.

By contrast, in FY07, a total of 17 states and the District of Columbia covered an estimated 612,439 children in their SCHIP programs—an increase of nearly 30,000 children from wealthier families.  Much of this increase stems in part from decisions by three states—Maryland, Missouri, and Pennsylvania—along with the District of Columbia to extend SCHIP coverage to children with family incomes up to 300% of FPL during calendar year 2007, just prior to the release of the Administration’s SCHIP guidance.  In short, the data show no discernable trend by states to target their energies on enrolling lower-income children first before expanding SCHIP up the income scale—a key concern of many conservatives during the debate on children’s health legislation last year.

Enrollment of Adults in Children’s Program:  The CRS report also analyzes the coverage of adults—pregnant women, parents, and childless adults—in the SCHIP program.  The CRS data do indicate that the total number of adults decreased from FY06 to FY07, and the number of childless adults on the SCHIP rolls halved.  However, the number of states covering adults increased, and several states saw expansion of the number of adults, and childless adults, covered under the program:

  • Eight states—Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia—saw overall adult populations in SCHIP increase;
  • Three states—Idaho, New Mexico, and Oregon—saw increased enrollment in the number of childless adults;
  • Seven states— Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon—saw increased enrollment in the number of parents covered;
  • Three states—Colorado, Nevada, and Rhode Island—increased SCHIP enrollment for pregnant women.

While many conservatives may support the overall reduction in adults enrolled in a children’s health insurance program, some may still be concerned by the persistence of adult coverage—particularly given decisions by both Arkansas and Nevada to expand coverage to adults during FY07.  In addition, the fact that nearly 75% of the reduction in adult SCHIP enrollment from FY06 to FY07 came from one state’s (Arizona) decision to remove childless adults from the program rolls may lead some conservatives to question whether this welcome development was a one-year anomaly or part of a larger trend.

Conclusion:  Most conservatives support enrollment and funding of the SCHIP program for the populations for whom the SCHIP program was created.  That is why in December the House passed, by a 411-3 vote, legislation reauthorizing and extending the SCHIP program through March 2009.  That legislation included an additional $800 million in funding for states to ensure that all currently eligible children will continue to have access to state-based SCHIP coverage.

However, many conservatives retain concerns about actions by states or the federal government that would reduce private health insurance coverage while increasing reliance on a government-funded program.  To that end, data proving that many states have expanded coverage to wealthier populations without first ensuring that low-income children are enrolled in SCHIP, and that states have in recent months expanded coverage under a children’s health insurance program to adult populations, suggest that some states continue to expand government-funded health insurance, at significant cost to state and federal taxpayers, in a manner that may encourage individuals to drop private coverage.

Particularly given these developments, conservatives may believe that the Administration’s guidance to states remains consistent with the goal of ensuring that SCHIP remains targeted toward the low-income populations for which it was designed.  Therefore, many conservatives will support the reasonable attempts by CMS to bolster the integrity of the SCHIP program while retaining state plans’ flexibility, and question efforts by Congressional Democrats to encourage further expansion of government-funded health insurance financed by federal taxpayers.

 

[1] In general, state plan amendments can expand eligibility to higher income brackets, or otherwise modify state plans, while Section 1115 waivers by definition require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive statutory requirements under demonstration authority.  For more information, see CRS Report RL 30473, available online at http://www.congress.gov/erp/rl/pdf/RL30473.pdf (accessed September 8, 2008).

Weekly Newsletter: June 2, 2008

Health Centers Bill Would Authorize Significant Spending Increase

This week, the House is expected to take up under suspension of the rules legislation (HR 1343) reauthorizing the community health center program. The bill authorizes $14 billion in spending over the next five fiscal years, subject to annual appropriations. In addition, the bill would expand the scope of an existing government program to extend federal liability protection to volunteer medical practitioners working at community health centers.

Some conservatives may be concerned that the amount of spending contemplated by this legislation—a 40% increase in funding over a bill the House passed in 2006—may be inappropriate as a matter of fiscal policy, and further should not be considered under expedited House procedures. Some conservatives may also be concerned that the legislation’s stated goal of doubling the number of patients treated at community health centers by 2015 may be used as a justification for further spending increases in future years. Lastly, some conservatives may be concerned with a proposed expansion of a federal liability program for health center workers that has its roots in the flaws of the current medical liability system. Some conservatives may instead champion the comprehensive liability reform that all medical practitioners—private and public, volunteer and paid—need in order to restore the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the amount of harmful litigation.

The Outlook Ahead

As Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, several health care items remain ripe for legislative activity in the coming weeks. Democrat leaders have advised that a final version of mental health parity legislation may be voted on by both chambers, and recent reports indicate that negotiations in the Senate on health IT may yield activity prior to the August recess. In addition, legislative provisions repealing Medicaid fiscal integrity regulations, providing incentives for states to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to wealthier families, and imposing restrictions on physician-owned specialty hospitals remain under consideration as part of the wartime supplemental appropriations measure. The RSC has weighed in with conservative concerns on several aspects of these proposals, and will continue to do so as the process moves forward.

However, the most prominent health debate will center on the scheduled July 1 reduction in Medicare physician reimbursements under the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism, and any action Congress may take to forestall such reductions. In anticipation of the debate on the Medicare legislative package, the RSC has prepared two Policy Briefs providing background on comparative effectiveness research and the Medicare Advantage program.

Articles of Note: A Tale of Two States

Last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal contained two editorials on the diverging status of health insurance markets across the 50 states. One article highlighted several key reforms enacted by Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) and the legislature to reform Florida’s insurance market. With the legislation’s passage, Florida became the largest of a growing number of states that are permitting carriers to offer comprehensive, lowcost insurance policies free from onerous state benefit mandates. Supporters of the concept believe that such a reform could reduce health insurance premiums by permitting carriers to create innovative insurance products and consumers to buy the plan that most suits their needs—allowing, for instance, a 20-something single male to decline maternity coverage in exchange for a lower insurance rate.

Meanwhile, a Republican Assemblyman in New Jersey introduced legislation permitting Garden State residents to purchase health insurance policies offered in other states. The initiative closely resembles federal legislation (HR 4460) offered by Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ), and would, like the Florida legislation, attempt to reduce health insurance premiums by circumventing costly state regulations and increasing the options for consumers to find affordable coverage. Such a proposal could have significant implications in New Jersey, where guaranteed issue regulations—which encourage individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they become sick—have raised premiums to nearly twice the national average, pricing many younger New Jerseyans out of purchasing coverage.

Many conservatives may support both these efforts, and hope that the success of Florida’s experiment provides the incentive for New Jersey and other states to follow its lead. The Journal editorial notes that the plans created by the Florida measure are “not a cure-all,” but conservatives may believe that these and similar efforts to create a more consumer-friendly health care environment could play a significant role in reducing the growth of health care costs over time.

Read the articles here: “The Florida Revelation…
…And Escape from New Jersey

Weekly Newsletter: May 19, 2008

Democrats Advance Provisions to Expand SCHIP to Wealthier Families

This past week, Democrats in both the House and the Senate took actions to block guidance from the Administration that would keep the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) on mission. On Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee held a hearing on legislation (HR 5998) that would override guidance issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last August. That guidance is intended to ensure first that individuals with private health insurance do not drop their coverage in order to join a government-funded program, and second that states target their SCHIP funds at the low-income families for whom the program was created before expanding their state health plans to cover children from wealthier families.

That same day, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) attached legislative provisions mirroring HR 5998 to the wartime supplemental appropriations measure. The provisions were attached along with language similar to a House bill (HR 5613) that would suspend several Medicaid anti-fraud regulations. Sen. Lautenberg’s home state of New Jersey—which extends government-funded health insurance to “low-income” families making over $70,000 for a family of four—is one that has taken legal action against CMS to block the SCHIP guidance.

Some conservatives may be troubled, but not surprised, by the Democrat attempts to ensure that states can expand their SCHIP programs up the income ladder—consistent with legislation that passed the House last year permitting “low-income” families with over $80,000 in income to be added to government rolls. Given that the Administration has clarified the guidance to ensure that no child need be dropped off the SCHIP rolls as a result of the CMS policy, many conservatives would support the Administration’s attempts to keep the SCHIP program targeted on the populations for whom it was created, and oppose Democrat efforts to override these reasonable limits.

An RSC Policy Brief on this issue can be found here.

Ways and Means Hearing Examines HSAs

Last week, the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee held a hearing analyzing the growth of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The Subcommittee heard testimony from the CEO of Alegent Health, a Nebraska-based health system that has implemented consumer-driven health care for its employees.

Since embarking on a consumer-driven model in 2005, Alegent has provided free preventive care and other incentives for healthy behaviors, while increasing price and quality transparency for its employees and patients alike. The results have been impressive: 92% participation by employees in consumer-directed plans, with high contribution rates to HSAs from low-income employees, lower costs, and healthier workers.

Many conservatives may believe that Alegent Health represents a successful model of how the growth of HSAs and consumer-driven health care can reduce rising health care costs. By empowering employees to take control of their lifestyle and health decisions, HSAs can encourage healthy behaviors that will reverse the growth of chronic diseases such as those linked to obesity, while incentivizing workers to accumulate real and portable savings that can be used to pay for health expenses. Some conservatives may believe the testimony at the Ways and Means hearing provided a welcome example of HSAs’ effectiveness, and a reminder why Democrat attempts further to regulate this new form of health care should be viewed with significant caution.

An RSC Policy Brief providing background on HSA enrollment can be found here.

Article of Note: Rationed Care Kills

From the United Kingdom comes a story in the Daily Mail by Sarah Anderson, an ophthalmologist fighting twin battles: to save her father’s life and against Britain’s National Health Service. Her father’s kidney tumor could be treated by a new drug—but while the pharmaceutical has been approved for use in Europe for two years, Britain’s National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) will not complete its assessment of the drug’s usefulness until January. Until then, local NHS branches can refuse to provide the drug, leaving Anderson’s family to pay for their father’s treatment on their own, or face the inevitable consequences that will follow if he cannot obtain it.

Some conservatives may be concerned by this story’s cautionary tale, particularly in the context of efforts by Democrats to establish a similar “comparative effectiveness” institute under the aegis of the federal government. Conservatives may not only believe that such an approach would put bureaucrats, and not doctors and patients, at the center of medical policy, but would also result in the types of costly delays and care rationing that put lives at stake.

Anderson’s ultimate verdict on her family’s dilemma is a sobering one with which many conservatives would agree: “If Dad should lose his life to cancer, it would be devastating—but to lose his life to bureaucracy would be far, far worse.”

Read the article here: “How the NHS Is Letting My Father Die

The Pitfalls of Guaranteed Issue

Background:  Beginning in the early 1990s, some states began to consider various policy solutions to reduce the number of uninsured Americans.   One such solution required insurance carriers in a state to accept all applicants, regardless of their age or health status.  Advocates believed that these guaranteed issue regulations would improve access to health insurance coverage for those individuals with chronic health conditions for whom policies had heretofore been unobtainable.

In many instances, imposition of guaranteed issue restrictions on insurance carriers was coupled with additional regulation in the form of community-rated premiums.  Community rating provisions generally require insurance carriers to charge all individuals the same premium, with minor variations occasionally permitted due to geographic variations or general age bands.  As with guaranteed issue regulations, community rating attempts to expand access to insurance for those with chronic conditions by ensuring they will pay no higher premiums than healthy individuals.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, both remaining Democratic candidates support guaranteed issue and community rating restrictions on insurance carriers.  Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) notes that his proposed health insurance exchange will “charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status.”[1]  Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), claiming that “insurance companies in America spend tens of billions of dollars per year figuring out how to avoid costly beneficiaries,” would impose guaranteed issue restrictions on carriers, along with prohibitions on “charging large premium differences based on age, gender, and occupation.”[2]  However, because she accepts the criticism that placing such restrictions on carriers in the absence of a mandate to purchase insurance would only encourage individuals to “game” the system by waiting until they become sick to submit an insurance application, Sen. Clinton has also incorporated an individual mandate to purchase health insurance into her platform.

Problems in Implementation:  Most of the available data from states that have imposed guaranteed issue and community rating restrictions are consistent with the concern articulated by the Clinton campaign—that because individuals can obtain health insurance at any time and at standard rates, they have little incentive to purchase coverage until such time as they become ill.  This rational choice on the part of individuals creates a moral hazard whose burden is borne by insurance carriers—because their insured population is sicker than the population as a whole, they have no choice but to raise premiums across-the-board, as they are prohibited from imposing even slightly higher premiums on sicker populations.  These across-the-board increases further discourage young, healthy individuals from purchasing insurance.

Data from a prominent online broker of health insurance policies nationwide illustrate the disparity in premiums between states with guaranteed issue policies and states lacking them.  A report released last September found that in 2006, the average monthly cost of an individual health insurance policy in two states with guaranteed issue and community rating restrictions—New York and New Jersey—was $338 and $277 respectively.[3]  These numbers are approximately twice the average amount paid for health insurance by individuals in neighboring Pennsylvania—a state without guaranteed issue and community rating restrictions, and whose average premium of $148 per month equals the national average.[4]  Due to the wide difference in premiums created by excessive regulation in some states, some conservatives may support legislation permitting individuals to buy health insurance across state lines, to take advantage of lower premiums in states with more realistic levels of insurance regulation.

The perverse incentives created by guaranteed issue and community rating policies that have driven up premiums have also helped to drive insurance carriers out of states where they have been imposed.  For instance, Kentucky enacted both guaranteed issue and community rating procedures in 1995, but ultimately ended up repealing both, due in large part to the fact that by 1997 most every insurance carrier ceased operations in the state.  The regulations were repealed in 2000, and by May 2007 seven insurance carriers had returned to offer individual insurance products in Kentucky.[5]

Alternatives to Guaranteed Issue:  Instead of imposing additional restrictions on carriers that in many cases have damaged insurance markets, many states have developed alternative solutions for medically high-risk individuals.  In total, 34 states have established reinsurance mechanisms, or high-risk pools, providing approximately 200,000 individuals with chronic conditions access to care.[6]  As a result, overall individual health insurance premiums in states with high-risk mechanisms are significantly lower than the $300 monthly averages seen in guaranteed issue states like New York and New Jersey.

Although premiums are paid by participants in these state-based pools, and the premiums are higher than standard rates (generally 150-200% of rates for standard risks), other sources of revenue can be used to offset the pools’ operating losses.  These mechanisms are financed through means that vary from state to state, but can include per capita surtaxes on insurance plans, state general revenues, or other sources of dedicated funding.  In addition, legislation reauthorized by Congress in 2006 (P.L. 109-172) provides for federal grants to state high-risk pools to offset their operating losses.  The Fiscal Year 2008 omnibus appropriations measure (P.L. 110-161) included nearly $50 million in grants to states appropriated pursuant to the 2006 authorization.

One further nuance on the high-risk pool mechanism involves a risk transfer model based solely on interactions among private insurance companies.  Under this scenario, insurance carriers would resolve claims amongst themselves at year’s end, based upon which carriers had disproportionate numbers of beneficiary claims associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes, chronic heart failure, or breast cancer.  Some conservatives may find this model slightly preferable to the state-run risk pool mechanism, because the lack of state and/or federal funding removes a disincentive for carriers to “game” the system by ceding high-risk patients into a pool with a government backstop attached.

Conclusion:  Based on the examples examined above, some conservatives may be concerned that the twin proposals of guaranteed issue and community rating have served to undermine insurance markets where they have been implemented.  Because these policies serve as a de facto tax on young and healthy individuals—who pay higher rates than they would otherwise be charged in order to finance the coverage of older and sicker individuals—they encourage moral hazard, by making insurance plans prohibitively expensive for those healthy populations who are generally less inclined to purchase coverage in the first place.

Some policy-makers, conceding this point, therefore believe that an individual mandate to purchase coverage would succeed in forcing all healthy risks into purchasing insurance, thereby reducing the perverse effects of guaranteed issue regulations.  However, that argument pre-supposes the efficacy of an individual mandate—and Massachusetts’ experiment with a mandate has already resulted in 15-20% of the population being exempted from it due to cost concerns.  In addition, some conservatives might question whether and how the concept of “personal responsibility” advanced by advocates of an individual mandate comports with community rating policies which would charge smokers with lung cancer, or other individuals with behaviorally-acquired diseases, the same insurance premiums as their healthier counterparts.

While the concept of ending “insurance company discrimination” against less healthy people sounds politically appealing, many individuals who have already developed a chronic condition do not need access to insurance, but rather access to health care—and the existing state-based risk pool mechanisms have helped provide that care for a significant population.  For other individuals, a landmark 1999 book by Wharton economists Mark Pauly and Bradley Herring demonstrated how the individual health insurance market does pool risk—because policies are guaranteed renewable, and one individual’s premium cannot be increased or decreased at the time of renewal based on changes in health status, healthy risks do subsidize sicker risks more effectively and efficiently than critics assert.[7]  For these reasons, some conservatives may therefore view guaranteed issue and community rating as unnecessary policies that would unduly restrict the health insurance marketplace, and actually undermine their stated intention of reducing costs while increasing access to care.

 

[1] “Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America,” available online at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008), p. 4.

[2] “American Health Choices Plan,” available online at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008), pp. 6-7.

[3] “The Cost and Benefits of Individual Health Insurance Plans: 2007,” available online at http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/content/expertcenterNew/CostBenefitsReportSeptember2007.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008), p. 23.

[4] Ibid.  Perhaps paradoxically in light of the above evidence, Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) has proposed extending guaranteed issue and community rating restrictions to the Pennsylvania insurance market.  See http://www.gohcr.state.pa.us/prescription-for-pennsylvania/PlainEnglishLegislation.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008), p. 5.

[5] Cited in Anthony Lo Sasso, “An Examination of State Non-Group and Small Group Health Insurance Regulations,” (Washington, DC, American Enterprise Institute Working Paper #140, January 2008), available online at http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080111_LoSassoState.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008), p. 15.

[6] Additional information on state-based high risk pools can be found through the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans at www.naschip.org.

[7] Bradley Herring and Mark Pauly, Pooling Health Insurance Risks (Washington, DC, American Enterprise Institute Press, 1999).  See also Herring and Pauly, “The Effect of State Community Rating Regulations on Premiums and Coverage in the Individual Insurance Market,” (Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #12504, August 2006), available online at http://www.nber.org/papers/w12504.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008).