What’s Going on with Premium Increases under Obamacare?

Multiple articles in recent weeks have outlined the ways Democrats intend to use Obamacare as a wedge issue in November’s midterm elections. While only a few states have released insurer filings—and regulators could make alterations to insurers’ proposals—the preliminary filings to date suggest above-average premium increases have been higher than the underlying trend in medical costs.

Democrats claim that such premium increases come from the Trump administration and Republican Congress’s “sabotage.” But do those charges have merit? On the three primary counts discussed in detail below, the effects of the policy changes varies significantly.

End of Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments

The administration’s decision meant most insurers increased premiums for 2018, to recoup their costs for discounting cost-sharing indirectly (i.e., via premiums) rather than through direct CSR payments. However, as I previously noted, most states devised strategies whereby few if any individuals would suffer harm from those premium increases. Low-income individuals who qualify for premium subsidies would receive larger subsidies to offset their higher costs, and more affluent individuals who do not qualify for subsidies could purchase coverage away from state exchanges, where insurers offer policies unaffected by the loss of CSR payments.

These state-based strategies mean that the “sabotage” charges have little to no merit, for several reasons. First, the premium increases relating to the lack of direct CSR payments already took effect in most states for 2018; this increase represents a one-time change that will not recur in 2019.

Second, more states have announced that, for 2019, they will switch to the “hold harmless” strategy described above, ensuring that few if any individuals will incur higher premiums from these changes. Admittedly, taxpayers will pay more in subsidies, but most consumers should see no direct effects. This “sabotage” argument was disingenuous when Democrats first raised it last year, and it’s even more disingenuous now.

Eliminating the Individual Mandate Penalty

Repealing the mandate will raise premiums for 2019, although questions remain over the magnitude. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last month officially reduced its estimate of the mandate’s “strength” in compelling people to purchase coverage by about one-third. However, another recent study suggests that, CBO’s changes notwithstanding, the mandate had a significant impact on getting people to buy insurance—suggesting that many healthy people could drop coverage once the mandate penalty disappears.

To insurers, the mandate repeal represents an unknown factor shaping the market in 2019. In the short term at least, whether or not people will drop coverage in 2019 due to the mandate’s repeal matters less than what insurers—and, just as important, insurance regulators—think people will do in response. If insurers think many people will drop, then premiums could rise significantly; however, if insurers already thought the mandate weak or ineffective, then its repeal by definition would have a more limited impact.

New Coverage Options

The Trump administration’s moves to expand access to association health plans and short-term insurance coverage, while still pending, also represent a factor for insurers to consider. In this case, insurers fear that more affordable coverage that does not meet all of Obamacare’s requirements will prove attractive to young and healthy individuals, raising the average costs of the older and sicker individuals who remain in Obamacare-compliant plans.

If association plans and short-term coverage do not entice many enrollees—or if most of those enrollees had not purchased coverage to begin with—then the market changes will not affect exchange premiums that much. By contrast, if the changes entice millions of individuals to give up exchange coverage for a non-compliant but more affordable plan, then premiums for those remaining on the exchanges could rise significantly.

Estimates of the effects of these regulatory changes vary. For instance, the administration’s proposed rule on short-term plans said it would divert enrollment from exchanges into short-term plans by only about 100,000-200,000 individuals. However, CBO and some other estimates suggest higher impacts from the administration’s changes, and a potentially greater impact on premiums (because short-term and association plans would siphon more healthy individuals away from the exchanges).

But the final effect may depend on the specifics of the changes themselves. If the final rule on short-term plans does not allow for automatic renewability of the plans, they may have limited appeal to individuals, thus minimizing the effects on the exchange market.

However, those same proponents seem less interested in advertising the same study’s premium impact. The Urban researchers believe short-term plans will draw roughly 2.6 million individuals away from exchange coverage, raising premiums for those who remain by as much as 18.3 percent.

Why Prop Up Obamacare?

The selective use of data regarding short-term plans illustrates Republicans’ problem: On one hand, they want to create other, non-Obamacare-compliant, options for individuals to purchase more affordable coverage. On the other hand, if those options succeed, they will raise premiums for individuals who remain on the exchanges.

But some might argue that fixating on exchange premiums for 2019 misses the point, because Republicans should focus on developing alternatives to Obamacare. The exchanges will remain, and still offer comprehensive coverage—along with income-based premium subsidies for that—to individuals with costly medical conditions. But rather than trying to bolster the exchanges by using bailouts and “stability” packages to throw more taxpayer money at them, Republicans could emphasize the new alternatives to Obamacare-compliant plans.

Of course, if that stance presents too much difficulty for Republicans, they have another option: They could repeal the root cause of the premium increases—Obamacare’s myriad new federal insurance requirements. Of course, in Washington, following through on pledges made for the last four election cycles seems like a radical concept, but to most Americans, delivering on such a long-standing promise represents simple common sense.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

CBO Tries But Fails to Defend Its Illegal Budget Gimmick

In a blog post released last Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) attempted to defend its actions regarding what I have characterized as an illegal budget gimmick designed to facilitate passage of an Obamacare bailout. When fully parsed, the response does not answer any of the key questions, likely because CBO has no justifiable answers to them.

The issue surrounds the budgetary treatment of cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), which President Trump cancelled last fall. While initially CBO said it would not change its budgetary treatment of CSRs, last month the agency changed course, saying it would instead assume that CSRs are “being funded through higher premiums and larger premium tax credit subsidies rather than through a direct appropriation.”

That claim fails on multiple fronts. First, it fails to address the states that did not assume that CSR payments get met through “higher premiums and larger premium tax credit subsidies.” As I noted in a March post, while most states allowed insurers to raise premiums for 2018 to take into account the loss of CSR payments, a few states—including Vermont, North Dakota, the District of Columbia, and a few other carriers in other states—did not. In those cases, the CSR payments cannot be accounted for through indirect premium subsidies, because premiums do not reflect CSR payments.

In its newest post, CBO admits that “most”—not all, but only “most”—insurers have covered the higher costs associated with lowering cost-sharing “by increasing premiums for silver plans.” But by using that phraseology, CBO cannot assume CSRs are being “fully funded” through higher premium subsidies, because not all insurers have covered their CSR costs through higher premiums. Therefore, even by CBO’s own logic, this new budgetary treatment violates the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings statutory requirements.

Second, even assuming that (eventually) all states migrate to the same strategy, and do allow for insurers to recover CSR payments through premium subsidies, CBO’s rationale does not comply with the actual text of the law. The law itself—2 U.S.C. 907—requires CBO to assume that “funding for entitlement authority is…adequate to make all payments required by those laws” (emphasis mine).

I reached out to CBO to ask about their reasoning in the blog post—how the organization can reconcile its admission that not all, but only “most,” insurers raised premiums to account for the lack of CSR funding with CBO’s claim that the CSRs are “fully funded” in the new baseline. A spokesman declined to comment, stating that more information about this issue would be included in a forthcoming publication. However, CBO did not explain why it published a blog post on the issue “provid[ing] additional information” when it now admits that post did not include all relevant information.

In addition, CBO also has not addressed the question of why Director Keith Hall reneged on his January 30 testimony before the House Budget Committee. At that January hearing, Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Dave Brat (R-VA) asked Hall about the budgetary treatment of CSRs. In both cases, the director said he would not make any changes “until we get other direction from the Budget Committees.”

That’s not what happened. CBO now claims that the change “was made by CBO after consultation with the House and Senate Budget Committees” (emphasis mine). No one directed CBO to make this change—or so the agency claims. But curiously enough, as I previously noted, Hall declined to answer a direct question from Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) at an April 12 hearing: “Why did you do that [i.e., change the baseline]?…You would have had to have gotten instruction to” make the change.

Moreover, Brat specifically asked how the agency would treat CSRs—as if they were being paid directly, or indirectly. Hall repeated the same response he gave Schakowsky, that CBO would not change its treatment “unless we get direction to do something different”—an answer which, given the agency’s later actions, could constitute a materially misleading statement to Congress.

Reasonable as it may seem from outward appearances, CBO’s excuses do not stand up to any serious scrutiny. The agency should finally come clean and admit that its recent actions do not comport with the law—as well as who put CBO up to making this change in the first place.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

More Liberal Scaremongering on Premiums

It didn’t get much notice at the time, given its release just prior to the massive, 2,232-page omnibus appropriations measure, but the Urban Institute issued a study designed largely, if not solely, for Democrats to engage in political scaremongering prior to the midterm elections this fall. Like other studies before it, the Urban paper omitted inconvenient truths that have made this year’s premium increases less drastic for consumers than they appear at first blush.

In fact, the Urban Institute authors ignored their own prior research while doing so, an explanation one can only chalk up to raw politics—i.e., the desire to show the greatest possible premium increases in political ads this fall, even though few (if any) individuals will pay them.

But nowhere in the recent Urban study did the researchers explicitly state the major implication of this selective loading of premiums. In most states, individuals who do not qualify for subsidies can avoid the “CSR surcharge” (i.e., the premium costs associated with the withdrawal of CSR funding) by either buying a non-silver plan, or buying a silver plan off the exchange.

As I previously noted, only in six states must unsubsidized individuals pay the costs associated with the withdrawal of CSRs. In the remaining 44 states and the District of Columbia, unsubsidized individuals can choose other plans to avoid the surcharge—and all fully informed, rational consumers would do so.

Given this unusual dynamic, the increase in silver, on-exchange premiums between 2017 and 2018 does reflect an increase in federal spending. Obamacare links premium subsidies to the cost of the second-lowest silver plan on the exchanges, meaning that federal spending on subsidies rose from the “CSR surcharge.” But it does not reflect what people paid out-of-pocket. In most cases, unsubsidized individuals could avoid the surcharge, and most presumably did just that.

The Urban Institute researchers know that most unsubsidized individuals can (and did) avoid the “CSR surcharge”—because they encouraged states to come up with this strategy in the first place. Their January 2016 paper about the withdrawal of CSR payments noted that, if those payments disappeared, unsubsidized individuals would be “strongly disincentivized” to purchase coverage from the exchanges, and would instead “enroll in silver plan coverage” outside the exchanges, where “plan premiums…would be significantly lower.”

Linda Blumberg, one of the authors of the prior study, also co-authored the paper released last month. She did not forget her prior work. In fact, she cited the January 2016 study in footnote six of the March 2018 paper. So why did the March 2018 work nowhere mention that most unsubsidized individuals could, and likely did, obtain cheaper coverage by buying other types of plans?

The obvious answer comes in the lead paragraph of a Politico story about the study: “Premiums for the most popular Obamacare plans skyrocketed by nearly a third this year…” Neither the study nor the Politico story mentioned that in most states, only subsidized individuals—for whom the federal government pays most of their premiums—purchased these plans, and that unsubsidized individuals could avoid these “skyrocketing” premiums by purchasing other coverage.

In other words, the Urban Institute “study” amounted to a political hit piece on Republicans. By coming up with the largest possible premium increases, even though few (if any) individuals actually paid these increases out-of-pocket, the Urban Institute gave Democrats fodder to use in campaign attack ads this fall. Given the lack of attention and consideration the Urban researchers paid to their own prior work, that seems the prime objective for the paper.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

“Stability” Bill Will Not Reduce Premiums in 2019 Compared to 2018

A PDF version of this document is available online here.

Backers of Obamacare “stability” legislation claim it will lower premiums. However, most studies suggest that even after Congress spends tens of billions of dollars, premiums will still rise in 2019 compared to 2018. If the “stability” bill won’t deliver on its promise of lower rates, why enact such controversial legislation…?

CLAIM: “Oliver Wyman projected premium decreases…40% lower premiums…”

THE FACTS:
1.     Half of supposed premium decrease depends on states enacting their own reinsurance programs.

2.     Oliver Wyman’s own report admits most states will not get reinsurance programs enacted in time for 2019 open enrollment—less than eight months away.

3.     10% of supposed premium decrease comes from appropriation of cost-sharing reductions (CSRs).

4.     In all but six states in 2018, individuals can purchase plans with premiums unaffected by cancellation of CSR payments. Therefore, most unsubsidized enrollees will not see any premium reduction in 2019 if Congress appropriates CSR funds—because they never saw a premium increase to begin with.

5.     Does not consider impact of Association Health Plans (AHPs) or short-term plans. If either AHPs or short-term plans achieve sizable enrollment, they could siphon off healthy individuals from the Exchanges—raising premiums for those who remain.

REALITY:     Eliminating the effects of waivers most states won’t receive by year-end, and CSR payments that didn’t affect most unsubsidized enrollees to begin with, Oliver Wyman believes premiums in 2019 will decline only by about 10%. If health costs rise substantially, or short-term plans become popular, those modest premium decreases will disappear—and if both occur, individuals will likely face double-digit premium increases in 2019, even after the “stability” measure.

CLAIM: “CBO projected premium reductions…2019: Average 10% premium reduction…”

THE FACTS:
1.     Both CBO and the Trump Administration believe the elimination of the individual mandate penalty will raise premiums by roughly 10%—completely offsetting the effects of the “stability” bill next year.

2.     CBO has yet to analyze whether and how short-term plans and AHPs will raise Exchange premiums.

3.     While the Trump Administration thinks short-term plans will raise Exchange premiums only slightly—because a small number of people (100,000-200,000) will enroll in them—higher take-up of short-term plans could raise Exchange premiums substantially. The Urban Institute believes that 4.3 million individuals will enroll in short-term plans—and that this high enrollment in short-term plans (where they are offered) will raise Exchange premiums by 18.3 percent.

REALITY: At best CBO believes that the “stability” bill will mitigate the effects of eliminating the mandate penalty next year. But that makes premium increases for 2019 inevitable, and double-digit premium increases quite possible—even after the “stability” bill takes effect.

Legislative Bulletin: Updated Summary of Obamacare “Stability” Legislation

On Monday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and others introduced their latest version of an Obamacare “stability” bill. In general, the bill would appropriate more than $60 billion in funds to insurance companies, propping up and entrenching Obamacare rather than repealing it.

Also on Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the updated legislation. In CBO’s estimate, the bill would increase the deficit by $19.1 billion, while marginally increasing the number of insured Americans (by fewer than 500,000 per year).


Stability Fund
: Provides $500 million in funding for fiscal year 2018, and $10 billion in funding for each of fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021, for invisible high-risk pools and reinsurance payments. The $500 million this year would provide administrative assistance to states to establish such programs, with the $10 billion in each of the following three years maintaining them.

Grants the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the authority to allocate the funds to states—which some conservatives may be concerned gives federal bureaucrats authority to spend $30.5 billion wherever they choose.

Includes a provision requiring a federal fallback for 2019 (and only 2019) in states that choose not to establish their own reinsurance or invisible high-risk program. Moreover, these federal fallback dollars must be used “for market stabilization payments to issuers.” Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision—which, like the rest of the $30 billion in “stability funds,” did not appear in the original Alexander-Murray legislation—undermines state flexibility, by effectively forcing states to bail out insurers, whether they want to or not.

Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments: The bill appropriates roughly $30-35 billion in cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurers, which subsidizes their provision of discounts on deductibles and co-payments to certain low-income individuals enrolled on insurance exchanges.

Last October, President Trump announced he would halt the payments to insurers, concluding the administration did not have authority to do so under the Constitution. As a result, the bill includes an explicit appropriation, totaling roughly $3-4 billion for the final quarter of 2017, and $9-10 billion for each of years 2019, 2020, and 2021, based on CBO spending estimates. This language represents a change from the original Alexander-Murray bill, which appropriated payments for 2018 and 2019 only.

For 2018, the bill appropriates CSRs only for 1) states choosing the Basic Health plan option (which gives states a percentage of Obamacare subsidies as a block grant to cover low-income individuals) and 2) insurers for which HHS determines, in conjunction with state insurance commissioners, that the insurer assumed the payment of CSRs when setting rates for the 2018 plan year. This language represents a change from the original Alexander-Murray bill, which set up a complicated system of rebates that would have allowed insurers potentially to pocket billions of dollars by retaining “extra” CSR payments for 2018.

Some conservatives may be concerned that, because insurers understood for well over a year that a new administration could terminate these payments in 2017, the agreement would effectively subsidize their flawed assumptions. Some conservatives may be concerned that action to continue the flow of payments would solidify the principle that Obamacare, and therefore insurers, are “too big to fail,” which could only encourage further risky behavior by insurers in the future.

Hyde Amendment: With respect to the issue of taxpayer dollars subsidizing federal insurance plans covering abortion, the bill does not apply the Hyde Amendment protections retrospectively to the 2017 CSR payments, or to the (current) 2018 plan year. With respect to 2019 through 2021, the bill prohibits federal funding of abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. However, the bill does allow states to use state-only dollars to fund other abortions, as many state Medicaid managed care plans do currently.

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, with respect to coverage of abortions in state Medicaid plans:

  • 32 states and the District of Columbia follow the federal Hyde Amendment standard, funding abortion only in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother;
  • One state provides abortion only in the case of life endangerment; and
  • 17 states provide coverage for most abortions—five voluntarily, and 12 by court order.

State Waiver Processes: The bill would streamline the process for approving state innovation waivers, authorized by Section 1332 of Obamacare. Those waivers allow states to receive their state’s exchange funding as a block grant, and exempt themselves from the individual mandate, employer mandate, and some (but not all) of Obamacare’s insurance regulations.

Specifically, the bill would:

  • Extend the waivers’ duration, from five years to six, with unlimited renewals possible;
  • Prohibit HHS from terminating waivers during their duration (including any renewal periods), unless “the state materially failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the waiver”;
  • Require HHS to release guidance to states within 60 days of enactment regarding waivers, including model language for waivers—a change from the 30 days included in the original Alexander-Murray bill;
  • Shorten the time for HHS to consider waivers from 180 days to 120—a change from 90 days in the original Alexander-Murray bill;
  • Allow a 45-day review for 1) waivers currently pending; 2) waivers for areas “the Secretary determines are at risk for excessive premium increases or having no health plans offered in the applicable health insurance market for the current or following plan year”; 3) waivers that are “the same or substantially similar” to waivers previously approved for another state; and 4) waivers related to invisible high-risk pools or reinsurance, as discussed above. These waivers would initially apply for no more than three years, with an extension possible for a full six-year term;
  • Allow governors to apply for waivers based on their certification of authority, rather than requiring states to pass a law authorizing state actions under the waiver—a move that some conservatives may be concerned could allow state chief executives to act unilaterally, including by exiting a successful waiver on a governor’s order.

State Waiver Substance: On the substance of innovation waivers, the bill would rescind regulatory guidance the Obama administration issued in December 2015. Among other actions, that guidance prevented states from using savings from an Obamacare/exchange waiver to offset higher costs to Medicaid, and vice versa.

While supporting the concept of greater flexibility for states, some conservatives may note that, as this guidance was not enacted pursuant to notice-and-comment, the Trump administration can revoke it at any time—indeed, should have revoked it last year. Additionally, the bill amends, but does not repeal, the “guardrails” for state innovation waivers. Under current law, Section 1332 waivers must:

  • “Provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as” Obamacare coverage;
  • “Provide coverage and cost-sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending that are at least as affordable” as Obamacare coverage;
  • “Provide coverage to at least a comparable number of [a state’s] residents” as under Obamacare; and
  • “Not increase the federal deficit.”

Some conservatives have previously criticized these provisions as insufficiently flexible to allow for conservative health reforms like Health Savings Accounts and other consumer-driven options.

The bill allows states to provide coverage “of comparable affordability, including for low-income individuals, individuals with serious health needs, and other vulnerable populations” rather than the current language in the second bullet above. It also clarifies that deficit and budget neutrality will operate over the lifetime of the waiver, and that state innovation waivers under Obamacare “shall not be construed to affect any waiver processes or standards” under the Medicare or Medicaid statutes for purposes of determining the Obamacare waiver’s deficit neutrality.

The bill also makes adjustments to the “pass-through” language allowing states to receive their exchange funding via a block grant. For instance, the bill adds language allowing states to receive any funding for the Basic Health Program—a program states can establish for households with incomes of between 138-200 percent of the federal poverty level—via the block grant.

Some conservatives may view the “comparable affordability” change as a distinction without a difference, as it still explicitly links affordability to Obamacare’s rich benefit package. Some conservatives may therefore view the purported “concessions” on the December 2015 guidance, and on “comparable affordability” as inconsequential in nature, and insignificant given the significant concessions to liberals included elsewhere in the proposed legislative package.

Catastrophic Plans: The bill would allow all individuals to purchase “catastrophic” health plans, beginning in 2019. The legislation would also require insurers to keep those plans in a single risk pool with other Obamacare plans—a change from current law.

Catastrophic plans—currently only available to individuals under 30, individuals without an “affordable” health plan in their area, or individuals subject to a hardship exemption from the individual mandate—provide no coverage below Obamacare’s limit on out-of-pocket spending, but for “coverage of at least three primary care visits.” Catastrophic plans are also currently subject to Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirements.

Outreach Funding: The bill requires HHS to obligate $105.8 million in exchange user fees to states for “enrollment and outreach activities” for the 2019 and 2020 plan years—a change from the original legislation, which focused on the 2018 and 2019 plan years. Currently, the federal exchange (healthcare.gov) assesses a user fee of 3.5 percent of premiums on insurers, who ultimately pass these fees on to consumers.

In a rule released in December 2016, the outgoing Obama administration admitted that the exchange is “gaining economies of scale from functions with fixed costs,” in part because maintaining the exchange costs less per year than creating one did in 2013-14. However, the Obama administration rejected any attempt to lower those fees, instead deciding to spend them on outreach efforts. The agreement would re-direct portions of the fees to states for enrollment outreach.

Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision would create a new entitlement for states to outreach dollars. Moreover, some conservatives may object to this re-direction of funds that ultimately come from consumers towards more government spending. Some conservatives may support taking steps to reduce the user fees—thus lowering premiums, the purported intention of this “stabilization” measure—rather than re-directing them toward more government spending, as the agreement proposes.

The bill also requires a series of biweekly reports from HHS on metrics like call center volume, website visits, etc., during the 2019 and 2020 open enrollment periods, followed by after-action reports regarding outreach and advertising. Some conservatives may view these myriad requirements first as micro-management of the executive, and second as buying into the liberal narrative that the Trump administration is “sabotaging” Obamacare, by requiring minute oversight of the executive’s implementation of the law.

Cross-State Purchasing: Requires HHS to issue regulations (in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners) within one year regarding health care choice compacts under Obamacare. Such compacts would allow individuals to purchase coverage across state lines.

However, because states can already establish health care compacts amongst themselves, and because Obamacare’s regulatory mandates would still apply to any such coverage purchased through said compacts, some conservatives may view such language as insufficient and not adding to consumers’ affordable coverage options.

Consumer Notification: Requires states that allow the sale of short-term, limited duration health coverage to disclose to consumers that such plans differ from “Obamacare-approved” qualified health plans. Note that this provision does not codify the administration’s proposed regulations regarding short-term health coverage; a future Democratic administration could (and likely will) easily re-write such regulations again to eliminate the sale of short-term plans, as the Obama administration did in 2016.

CBO Analysis of the Legislation

As noted above, CBO believes the legislation would increase the deficit by $19.1 billion, while increasing the number of insured Americans marginally. In general, while CBO believed that changes to Obamacare’s state waivers program would increase the number of states applying for waivers, they would not have a net budgetary impact.

However, the bill does include one particular change to Obamacare Section 1332 waivers allowing existing waiver recipients to request recalculation of their funding formula. According to CBO, only Minnesota qualifies under the statutory definition, and could receive $359 million in additional funding between 2018 and 2022. Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision represents a legislative earmark that by definition can only affect one state.

With respect to the invisible high-risk pools and reinsurance, CBO believes the provisions would raise spending by a net of $26.5 billion, offset by higher revenues of $7 billion. The budget office estimated that the entire country would be covered by the federal fallback option in 2019, because “it would be difficult for other states [that do not have waivers currently] to establish a state-based program in time to affect premiums.”

For 2020 and 2021, CBO believes that 60 and 80 percent of the country, respectively, would be covered by state waivers; “the remainder of the population in those years would be without a federally-funded reinsurance program or invisible high-risk pool.” The $7 billion in offsetting savings referenced in CBO’s score comes from lower premiums, and thus lower spending on federal premium subsidies. In 2019, CBO believes “about 60 percent of the federal cost for the default federal reinsurance program would be offset by other sources of savings.”

CBO believes that, under the bill, premiums would be 10 percent lower in 2019, and 20 percent lower in 2020 and 2021, compared to current law. Some conservatives may note that lower premiums relative to current law does not equate to lower premiums relative to 2018 levels. Particularly because CBO expects elimination of the individual mandate tax will raise premiums by 10 percent in 2019, many conservatives may doubt that premiums will go down in absolute terms, notwithstanding the sizable spending on insurer subsidies under the bill.

CBO noted that premium changes would largely affect unsubsidized individuals—i.e., families with incomes more than four times the federal poverty level ($100,400 for a family of four in 2018)—a small portion of whom would sign up for coverage as a result of the reductions. However, “in states that did not apply for a waiver, premiums would be the same under current law as under the legislation starting in 2020.”

Moreover, even in states with a reinsurance waiver, CBO believes that insurers will “tend to set premiums conservatively to hedge against uncertainty” regarding the reinsurance programs—meaning that CBO “expect[s] that total premiums would not be reduced by the entire amount of available federal funding.”

As noted in prior posts, CBO is required by law to assume full funding of entitlement spending, including cost-sharing reductions. Therefore, the official score of the bill included no net budget impact for the CSR appropriation. However, Alexander received a supplemental letter from CBO indicating that, compared to a scenario where the federal government did not make CSR payments, appropriating funds for CSRs would result in a notional deficit reduction of $29 billion.

The notional deficit reduction arises because, in the absence of CSR payments, insurers would “load” the cost of reducing cost-sharing on to health insurance premiums—thus raising premium subsidies for those who qualify for them. CBO believes these higher subsidies would entice more families with incomes between two and four times the federal poverty definition ($50,200-$100,400 for a family of four in 2018) to sign up for coverage. Compared to a “no-CSR” baseline, appropriating funds for CSRs, as the bill would do, would reduce spending on premium subsidies, but it would also increase the number of uninsured by 500,000-1,000,000, as some families receiving lower subsidies would drop coverage.

Lastly, the expanded sale of catastrophic plans, coupled with provisions including those plans in a single risk pool, would slightly improve the health of the overall population purchasing Obamacare coverage. While individuals cannot receive federal premium subsidies for catastrophic coverage, enticing more healthy individuals to sign up for coverage will improve the exchanges’ overall risk pool slightly, lowering federal spending on those who do qualify for exchange subsidies by $849 million.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

“Stability” Bill Likely Will Not Lower Premiums in 2019

In the debate over an Obamacare “stability” bill, advocates of such a measure contend that it will lower premiums, throwing around studies and numbers to make their case. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) released a handout earlier this week claiming that Oliver Wyman forecast a 40 percent reduction in premiums from a “stability” package, and that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave preliminary estimates of a 10 percent premium reduction in 2019, and a 20 percent reduction in 2020 and 2021.

However, all these numbers avoid — wittingly or otherwise — answering the critical question: Premium reduction compared to what? Barack Obama ran into this problem when trying to sell Obamacare. In 2008, he said repeatedly that his health care plan would “cut” people’s premiums — and then, after signing the bill into law, tried to argue that when he had said “cut,” he really meant “slow the rate of increase.”

But would a “stability” bill actually prevent those premium increases for 2019, particularly for unsubsidized enrollees? (Federal subsidies insulate individuals with incomes under 400 percent of the poverty level — $100,400 for a family of four — from much of the effects of premium hikes.) Would premiums remain flat, or even decline, next year compared to 2018 rates? Based on the studies released to date, most indications suggest otherwise — which should give conservatives pause before embracing a measure that would further entrench Obamacare, making repeal that much less likely.

Factors Affecting Premiums For 2019

Over and above annual increases in medical costs, multiple unique factors will impact premiums for the coming year:

Cost-Sharing Reductions: President Trump’s October decision to stop Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurers had a large theoretical impact — but in most states, little practical effect on unsubsidized enrollees. Estimates released prior to the President’s decision suggested that insurers would need to raise premiums for 2018 by roughly 20 percent to account for loss of the CSR payments.

An analysis of states’ decisions regarding CSRs shows that only six states applied the CSR charges to all health insurance plan rates—thereby forcing unsubsidized enrollees to pay higher premiums. Because comparatively few unsubsidized enrollees paid higher premiums due to the CSR decision, the inverse scenario applies: Few unsubsidized enrollees will receive any premium reduction from appropriating CSRs.

Individual Mandate Repeal: As I noted last fall, eliminating Obamacare’s individual mandate tax, while retaining its costly regulations, will put upward pressure on premiums — the only question is how much. Without getting taxed for not purchasing Obamacare-compliant insurance, some healthy individuals will drop coverage, raising average premiums for the remainder.

In its most recent estimate last November, the CBO stated that eliminating the tax would raise exchange premiums “by about 10 percent in most years of the decade.” The administration likewise believes that eliminating the mandate penalty will raise premiums by a similar amount. Its proposed rule on short-term health plans estimated an average monthly premium of $649 with the individual mandate penalty, and $714 without—an increase of $65 per month, or exactly 10 percent.

The administration’s proposed rule on short-term health insurance admitted that exchange premiums would rise as a result of healthy individuals choosing short-term coverage over exchange plans, but by very modest amounts. In the administration’s estimates, premiums would rise by only $2-4 per month for exchange coverage — far less than the $65 monthly estimated premium increase due to elimination of the mandate tax, as noted above. However, the administration’s estimates only assume that 100,000-200,000 individuals enroll in short-term coverage.

By contrast, the liberal Urban Institute estimated much higher take-up of short-term plans by healthy individuals, and therefore much greater premium increases for the sicker individuals who would remain in Obamacare-compliant coverage. According to Urban, 4.3 million individuals would enroll in short-term coverage — more than 20 times the administration’s highest estimate. Because of these healthy individuals migrating to short-term coverage, the Urban researchers assume much larger premium increases for Obamacare-compliant plans, averaging 18.3 percent in the 45 states (plus the District of Columbia) that currently allow the sale of short-term coverage.

The proposed regulatory action on short-term plans — which the administration hopes insurers will start selling by this fall — could have minimal impact on premiums, or lead to sizable premium increases. In general, however, the more that short-term plans succeed in attracting many (healthy) customers, the higher premiums will climb for the (sicker) individuals who maintain exchange coverage.

Premium Tax Suspension: In the January continuing resolution, Congress suspended Obamacare’s health insurance tax — currently in effect for 2018 — for 2019. An August 2017 study, paid for by health insurer UnitedHealthGroup and conducted by Oliver Wyman, found that the insurer tax would raise premiums by about 2.7 percent. Removing the tax next year would lower 2019 premiums by roughly the same amount.

Premium Estimates — Comparing 2018 And 2019

Given the above factors, will premiums go down in 2019 compared to their current 2018 levels? Based on the analyses conducted to date, most indicators suggest they will not.

Oliver Wyman: As I noted on Wednesday, the 40 percent headline figure in the Oliver Wyman study relies on an assumption that Oliver Wyman itself finds dubious. That premium reduction assumes that states apply for and receive a waiver to create their own reinsurance pool on top of the federal reinsurance funds. However, Oliver Wyman concedes that “states that have not already begun working on a waiver will be challenged to get [one] filed and approved under the current regulatory regime in time to impact 2019 premiums.”

The report continues: “In those states that are not able to obtain [a waiver]…we estimate that premium [sic] would decline by more than 20 percent across all metal levels. Those estimates include an average 10 percent reduction due to the funding of CSRs, with the remaining reduction coming from the reinsurance program.”

However, most individuals will NOT receive a 10 percent premium reduction in 2019 if Congress funds CSRs — because, as noted above, most unsubsidized individuals are not paying higher premiums in 2018 due to the non-funding of CSRs. Moreover, while Oliver Wyman said its modeling “reflects elimination of the mandate penalty,” it does not consider the impact of regulatory action on short-term plans or AHPs.

Therefore, the study conducted by Oliver Wyman — which frequently does work for the insurance industry — suggests that, at best, the “stability” package would reduce premiums in 2019 compared to current law for the average enrollee by 10 percent. However, would it actually reduce premiums compared to 2018 levels for the average enrollee? Only if one assumes that 1) health costs do not rise significantly and 2) few individuals enroll in short-term plans or AHPs. If either scenario occurs, a slight premium decrease could turn into a premium increase — and if both scenarios occur, a sizable increase at that.

Congressional Budget Office: Neither Alexander nor the CBO have released their full analysis of a “stability” package. However, according to Alexander’s characterization of the CBO score, the budget office assumes a more modest premium impact than Oliver Wyman — a 10 percent reduction in 2019, followed by a 20 percent premium reduction in 2020 and 2021. Like Oliver Wyman, the CBO likely believes that tight deadlines would make it difficult for the funds provided by the “stability” bill to lower premiums in time for the 2019 plan year. Unlike Oliver Wyman, however, the CBO does not take into account whether and how funding CSRs would lower premiums — because, as I have written previously, federal budget law requires the CBO to assume full funding for CSRs (and all other entitlements) when conducting its analyses.

As noted above, the CBO believes that eliminating the mandate penalty would raise premiums by roughly 10 percent. Put another way, then, in CBO’s estimation, the entire “stability” package would only cancel out the effect of eliminating the mandate penalty on premiums in 2019. If health costs rise — as they do every year — then premiums will rise in 2019. And if the short-term plans succeed in attracting many customers away from the exchanges, then premiums for Obamacare-compliant plans could rise substantially — by double digits — even after the “stability” package.

Conservatives have many good reasons to oppose this “stability” measure — budgetary gimmicks, potential federal funding of abortion coverage, Congress’ total lack of oversight for the bad decisions made by insurers and insurance commissioners, to name just a few. But the fact that the measure looks unlikely to achieve its central goal of lowering premiums seems the most damning indictment of the proposal — failing to solve its intended problem, while causing so many others.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Susan Collins Moves the Goalposts on an Obamacare Bailout

The 19th century showman P.T. Barnum famously claimed that, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Apparently, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander think that Barnum’s dictum applies to their Senate colleagues. Both have undertaken a “bait-and-switch” game, constantly upping the ante on their request for an Obamacare “stability” bill — and raising questions about their credibility and integrity as legislators in the process.

Flash back to last December, when Congress considered provisions repealing the individual mandate as part of the tax reform bill. At that time, Collins engaged in a colloquy with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said he would support legislation funding Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions, as well as Collins’ own reinsurance proposal.

I thank the majority leader for his response. Second, it is critical that we provide States with the support they need to create State-based high-risk pools for their individual health insurance markets. In September, I introduced the bipartisan Lower Premiums Through Reinsurance Act of 2017, a bill that would allow States to protect people with preexisting conditions while lowering premiums through the use of these high-risk pools….

I believe that passage of legislation to create and provide $5 billion in funding for high-risk pools annually over 2 years, together with the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act, is critical for helping to offset the impact on individual market premiums in 2019 and 2020 due to repeal of the individual mandate. [Emphasis mine.]

Collins viewed McConnell’s commitment as so iron-clad that she put a transcript of the colloquy up on her website. Unfortunately, however, Collins didn’t find her side of the bargain as an iron-clad commitment.

One week after that exchange on the Senate floor, Alexander wrote an op-ed on a potential “stability” package. That op-ed claimed that Collins’ reinsurance bill included “$10 billion for invisible high-risk pools or reinsurance funds.” However, the text of the Collins bill itself would appropriate “$2,250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 and 2019” — that is, $4.5 billion and not $10 billion. I noted that discrepancy at the time, writing that, “Alexander seems to be engaged in a bidding war with himself about the greatest amount of taxpayers’ money he can shovel insurers’ way.”

It turns out I was (slightly) mistaken. Alexander wasn’t in a bidding war with himself over giving the greatest amount of taxpayer funds to insurers — he is in a bidding war with Collins. Just this week, both Collins and Alexander issued press releases touting a (flawed and overhyped) premium study by Oliver Wyman. The press releases claimed that “Oliver Wyman released an analysis today showing that the passage of a proposal based on … the Collins-Nelson Lower Premiums through Reinsurance Act will lower premiums … by more than 40 percent.” [Emphasis mine.]

But the release went on to note that, “Oliver Wyman based its analysis on a proposal that would fund [cost-sharing reductions] … and provide $10 billion annually for invisible risk pool/reinsurance funding in 2019, 2020, and 2021.” Not $2.25 billion for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, as the actual Collins-Nelson bill would provide — but more than four times as much annually, for a 50 percent longer duration.

Not even Common Core math can explain the gaping chasm between the funding amounts in the two bills. Does Alexander really want to make a straight-faced claim that an estimate assuming $30 billion in funding is “based on” a bill providing only $5 billion in funding? And if so, then why should a Senator who fails a math test even a first-grader could comprehend chair the committee with jurisdiction over federal educational policy?

Collins and Alexander went to all this trouble because they want to have their cake and eat it too. Collins expects McConnell to abide by his commitment from December — she reportedly cursed out a senior White House aide when the “stability” package failed to pass late last year. But she has no place criticizing McConnell or others for not keeping their word when she has proved unable to keep hers, by upping the ante on her asks for a “stability” bill — and putting out misleading press releases to hide the fact that she ever asked for “only” $5 billion in taxpayer funds.

Collins has no place attacking the White House, or anyone else, for “reneging on the deal.” She reneged on the deal herself — by not sticking to her original commitments, and then putting out misleading press releases to cover her tracks. The White House, and McConnell, should never have made an agreement on a “stability” bill with Collins in the first place. But if they did, the unscrupulous way in which she has handled herself since then should have nullified it.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Three Unanswered Questions on Covered California’s Bogus Premium “Study”

On Thursday, Covered California, the state’s health insurance Exchange, released a purported study providing estimates of premium increases over the next three years. The report itself provides precious little specificity regarding premium increases — not least because no one can know such details so far in advance. It seems purposefully designed around a blaring headline — “Premium Increases of Up to 90 Percent!!!” — with the rest largely window dressing.

The report also contains premium estimates for all 50 states. There seems little reason for the California state Exchange to commission a report on premium levels nationwide — particularly because the report does not provide anything more than a possible range of premium increases in each state. Either the Exchange views itself as part of the #Resistance to President Trump, it wants to use the headlines to motivate Congress to pass a “stability” package — or both. (Probably both.)

Is Covered California’s Actuary Biased?

A footnote in the paper notes that “the leadership on the analysis” in the paper was “provided by Covered California’s Chief Actuary, John Bertko.” Bertko’s name came up in another document, one I received last summer, following a Public Records Act request to Covered California. In the September 2016 email exchange, Bertko forwarded an article to colleagues regarding the status of legal action on cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), along with a note stating that “I think the court case on CSRs is unlikely to go the wrong way.”

He was wrong factually, of course. Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the Obama Administration lacked a valid appropriation to make CSR payments in May 2016, and Judge Vince Chhabria last fall denied a motion by state attorneys general requiring the Trump Administration to make the payments.

Why Did Covered California Not Prepare for Instability?

When it comes to the CSR issue discussed above, I wrote back in May 2016 that the incoming administration could withdraw the payments unilaterally, and that as a result, “come January 2017, the policy landscape for insurers could look far different” than it did under President Obama.

What did Covered California do regarding that warning? Exactly nothing. My Public Records Act request for all records relating to cost-sharing reductions and rates for the 2017 plan year yielded but two documents. The first, the Bertko e-mail chain referenced above, related solely to how the federal government had addressed the CSR issue. Bertko sent it two months after Covered California announced its rates for the 2017 plan year, and the Exchange’s model contract with insurers mentioned nothing about the federal government not funding CSRs — both demonstrating that Covered California failed to conduct due diligence about whether CSRs could disappear.

The second document Covered California disclosed is an e-mail chain starting on November 21, 2016, two weeks after the election. Covered California Executive Director Peter Lee requested an urgent legal analysis of the CSR issue, allowing Covered California to redact most of the email chain on attorney-client privilege grounds. (I separately removed personal contact information that Covered California left unredacted in the document sent to me.) That said, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the general context: “Oh ^!%^@#!@—Trump actually got elected! What can he do about CSRs now…?”

Will Peter Lee Actually Enroll in Obamacare Himself?

The Covered California paper claims that regulatory actions taken by the Trump Administration “are expected to draw consumers out of the individual market, sowing market instability and raising the specter of large premium increases in 2019 and beyond.”

However, one person definitely won’t be drawn out of the individual market: Peter Lee, Covered California’s Executive Director — who never went into the individual market in the first place, because he refuses to buy the policies his own Exchange sells. As I have previously written, Lee lets taxpayers pay for his health insurance coverage, even though he makes a salary of $436,800 annually.

Alternatively, Lee believes the Exchange coverage he promotes throughout California is good enough for others to buy, but not good enough for him—a similarly offensive concept. What exactly is the point of an Executive Director going on a bus tour promoting “quality, affordable coverage” if that individual won’t purchase that same coverage — either because he finds it unaffordable or of low quality?

Lee can release all the reports about increasing Exchange enrollment that he wants, but in reality, he has failed to put his money where his mouth is — quite literally. Unless and until he swallows his pride, joins the hoi polloi, and actually purchases the coverage he himself sells, the advice Covered California gives isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Did Orrin Hatch Call the Wrong Party “Stupid” Over Obamacare?

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch called Obamacare “the stupidest, dumbass bill” he’s ever seen at a recent American Enterprise Institute forum. “Some of you may have loved it,” he said. “And if you do, you are one of the stupidest, dumbass people I’ve ever met.”

Hatch ended up apologizing for his comment, but the question remains: If the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee considers Obamacare the “stupidest, dumbass” law on earth, then why on earth are his fellow Republicans so desperate to bail it out?

But of course, that approach would involve actually repealing Obamacare. And instead of solving the underlying problem, by repealing the regulations that led premiums to increase, Republicans want to throw money at the problem, giving insurance companies corporate welfare payments hand-over-fist in the hope that these efforts will mitigate ever-rising premiums.

This strategy does seem like a “dumbass” approach for several reasons. First, it does not repeal Obamacare. Numerous studies have demonstrated that Obamacare’s regulations have raised premiums. Occam’s Razor concludes that, if Congress wants to solve the problem of higher premiums, it should start by fixing the underlying reason for those higher premiums.

Second, this approach not only does not repeal Obamacare, it also entrenches it by making it the federal government’s business to “lower” health insurance premiums. The federal government has no more business dictating the price of health insurance than it does the price of homes, or food, or shoes. But by throwing more money at the Exchanges, Republicans will make it the business of the federal government — and federal taxpayers — to “lower” health insurance premiums.

President Trump hinted at the fundamental problems this approach brings last month, when he tweeted about protests in Britain over the National Health Service (NHS). One need only watch Prime Minister’s Questions to observe the ways in which Members of Parliament in Britain turn the NHS into a political tool. Most opposition parties pledge to “fix” the NHS by throwing more money at it. And last month, Jeremy Corbyn, head of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition, attacked the Conservative Government for “refusing to give our NHS the money it needs and needs now.”

If the federal government takes political responsibility for health insurance premiums, the “stability” fund would soon turn into a perpetual — and perpetually expanding — money pit. Even with a theoretical expiration date, Congress would face pressure to renew the fund, lest premiums increase if it lapses. And if premiums continue to rise, politicians would propose even greater corporate welfare payments, to “stabilize” the markets with yet more taxpayer dollars.

That scenario leads to the third problem, which Margaret Thatcher famously described four decades ago: Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.

That quote, coupled with our existing $20 trillion in federal debt, explains why, in their attempts to micro-manage the health insurance system from Washington, the Republican-Socialists who wish to bail out Obamacare have proposed much the same kind of “dumbass” policies as Hatch himself criticized.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Liberals’ New Plan to Take Over the Health Care System

The Center for American Progress proposed a plan for government-run health care Thursday, which the liberal think tank calls “Medicare Extra.”

Unlike Bernie Sanders’ single-payer system, which would abolish virtually all other forms of insurance, the plan would not ban employer coverage outright — at least not yet. In broad strokes, CAP would combine Medicaid and the individual insurance market into Medicare Extra, and allow individuals with other coverage, such as employer plans, traditional Medicare or VA coverage, to enroll in Medicare Extra instead.

The goal of CAP’s plan is to grow government, and to grow dependence on government. The paper omits many important policies, such as how to pay for the new spending. Here are some of the major objectives and concerns.

If You Like Your Obamacare, Too Bad

After attacking Republicans for wanting to “taking away health insurance from millions,” CAP would … take away health insurance from millions. The plan would effectively eliminate Obamacare’s insurance exchanges, and all individual health insurance: “With the exception of employer-sponsored insurance, private insurance companies would be prohibited from duplicating Medicare Extra benefits, but they could offer complementary benefits during an open enrollment period.”

Other sections of the plan (discussed further below) suggest that private insurers could offer Medicare Choice coverage as one element of Medicare Extra. CAP indicates that persons purchasing coverage on the individual market would have a “choice of plans.” But didn’t Obamacare promise that already — and how’s that working out? For that matter, what happened to that whole “If you like your plan, you can keep it” concept?

Mandatory Health Insurance — And A $12,550 Tax

The plan reinstates a mandate to purchase health insurance: “Individuals who are not enrolled in other coverage would be automatically enrolled in Medicare Extra … Premiums for individuals who are not enrolled in other coverage would be automatically collected through tax withholding and on tax returns.”

While the plan says that those with incomes below the tax filing threshold “would not pay any premiums,” it excludes one important detail — the right to opt out of coverage. Therefore, the plan includes a mandate, enforced through the tax code, and with the full authority of the Internal Revenue Service. (Because you can’t spell “insurance” without I-R-S.) The plan indicates that for families with incomes between 150 and 500 percent of the poverty level, “caps on premiums would range from 0 percent to 10 percent of income. For families with income above 500 percent of [poverty], premiums would be capped at 10 percent of income.”

In 2018, the federal poverty level stands at $25,100 for a family of four, making 500 percent of poverty $125,500. If that family lacks employer coverage (remember, the plan prohibits individuals from buying any other form of private insurance), CAP would tax that family 10 percent of income — $12,550 — to pay for its Medicare Extra plan.

Wasteful Overpayments Controlled By Government Bureaucrats

As noted above, the plan would allow insurers to bid to offer Medicare Choice coverage, but with a catch: Payments provided to these plans “could be no more than 95 percent of the Medicare Extra premium.” CAP claims that “this competitive bidding structure would guarantee that plans are offering value that is comparable with Medicare Extra.”

It does no such thing. By paying private plans only 95 percent of the government-run plan’s costs, the bidding structure guarantees that private plans will provide better value than the government-run plan. Just as CAP decried “wasteful overpayments” to private insurers in Medicare Advantage, the CAP proposal will allow government bureaucrats to control billions of dollars in wasteful federal government spending on Medicare Extra.

Costs To States

As noted above, CAP envisions the federal government taking over Medicaid from the states, “given the continued refusal of many states to expand Medicaid and attempts to use federal waivers to undermine access to health care.”

But the plan also requires states to continue to make maintenance-of-effort payments even after the federal government takes Medicaid away from state jurisdiction. Moreover, the plan by its own admission “giv[es] a temporary discount [on the maintenance-of-effort provisions] to states that expanded their Medicaid programs” under Obamacare — effectively punishing states for a choice (i.e., to expand or not expand) that the Supreme Court made completely voluntary. And finally, it requires “states that currently provides benefits … not offered by Medicare Extra … to maintain those benefits,” leaving states perpetually on the hook for such spending.

Would Employer Coverage Really Remain?

The plan gives employers theoretical options regarding their health coverage. Employers could continue to offer coverage themselves, subject to certain minimum requirements. Alternatively, they could enroll their employees in Medicare Extra, with three possible sources of employer funding: Paying 70 percent of workers’ premiums, making maintenance-of-effort payments equal to their spending in the year preceding enactment, adjusted for inflation, or “simpler aggregated payments in lieu of premium contributions,” ranging from 0 to 8 percent of payroll. (The plan would exempt employers with under 100 full-time equivalent workers from making any payments.)

Two questions linger over these options: First, would employer coverage remain? CAP obviously wishes that it would not in the long-term, while recognizing the political problems associated with an abrupt transition. Second, could employers game the system among the various contribution options? While details remain unclear, any plan that sets up two systems (let alone four) represents a classic arbitrage opportunity. If employers act rationally, they could end up reducing their own costs in a way that significantly increases the federal government’s obligations.

Higher Health Spending

CAP advertises its plan as providing “zero or low deductibles, free preventive care, free treatment for chronic disease” — the source of 75 percent of American health care spending — and “free generic drugs.” It would also expand coverage of long-term care services not covered by Medicare (and only partially covered by Medicaid). But all this “free” stuff won’t come cheap.

In analyzing Bernie Sanders’ health care plan, the liberal Urban Institute estimated that it would increase overall health spending by 22.1 percent. Notably, the Urban researchers estimated that Sanders’ plan would raise spending by people who currently have health insurance by almost the same amount, or 15.1 percent, because the lack of cost-sharing will encourage individuals to increase their consumption of care. With the CAP plan apparently proposing that government fully subsidize more than three quarters of health care spending, its proposal will increase health care costs almost as much as Sanders’.

The CAP plan proposes measures to lower costs — namely price controls (i.e., Medicare dictating prices to doctors, hospitals, and drug companies), with some token references to other policies like bundled payments and limiting the tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance. But if those proposals go the way of Obamacare’s “Cadillac tax” — potentially never implemented because politicians of both parties lack the discipline to control health care spending — then the plan will only raise health costs rather than lower them.

Something For Nothing

The plan proposes that families with incomes below 150 percent of poverty ($37,150 for a family of four this year) pay for their coverage the princely sum of … zero dollars. No premiums, no deductibles, no co-payments. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

And while CAP does not include specific ideas to pay for all the associated new spending, the concepts it does propose largely involve taxing “the rich” (which includes small businesses).

While it doesn’t work as it should — most people “get back” far more than they “pay in” — at least Medicare makes an attempt to have all individuals pay for coverage through the payroll tax. CAP’s plan amounts to a transfer of wealth from one group to another.

Even The New York Times this week highlighted dissent from middle-class families upset at the thought of having to pay for low-income individuals to receive “free” Medicaid. So, CAP might want to rethink what Bill Clinton called “the craziest thing in the world” — making middle-class families pay even more for mandatory insurance ($12,550, anyone?) while certain families contribute not so much as a dime for coverage — along with just about every other element of its health care plan.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.