How deep is public support for a broad public option in health insurance?

Attention xpostfactoid readers: All subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free). I will continue to cross-post on this site, but I've cancelled the follow.it feed (it is an excellent free service, but Substack pulls in new subscribers). If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up!  

In polling about U.S. healthcare, the prospect of a “public option” for health insurance, open to all Americans regardless of whether they have access to employer-sponsored insurance, generally scores high. Here is the top-line response to a Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll conducted in January 2020:

Looking beneath the hood of that apparent relative consensus, a research team led by Adrianna McIntyre of Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health conducted a poll in November/December 2020 that probed attitudes toward government that underlie responses to health reforms including a public option — specifically, a Medicare buy-in for people under age 65. The researchers published an analysis* in Milbank Quarterly this month. While top-line results were similar to KFF’s, the researchers note:

An overwhelming majority of Democrats (86%) report believing that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure universal health insurance coverage; only 11% of Republicans hold the same view. Most Democrats (71%) also report that they would prefer a health insurance system run mostly by the government, while a similar share of Republicans (78%) would prefer a system based mostly on private health insurance. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) believe the federal government should be more involved in health care in the future, but over half of their Republican counterparts (56%) believe it should be less involved. Prior work has also found that while a large majority of Democrats (65%) believe the government would do a better job than private health insurance plans at reducing the nation’s health care costs, significantly fewer Republicans (25%) hold that view.

So, ACA marketplace, how're you doin so far? [Updated 10/14]

[Update, 10/14/15: This week Kaiser estimated that about 7.1 million uninsured people are currently eligible for private plan subsidies in the ACA marketplace. As of June, the marketplace had 8.3 million active subsidized enrollees. Thus the marketplace has reached about 54% capacity among the subsidized, if Kaiser's estimate of the uninsured population is on point. The Kaiser estimate, like a recent HHS estimate of the 2016 target market, indicates that CBO's projections of what will constitute full marketplace capacity may be too high. ]
---
A dispiriting backdrop for those assessing the progress of the ACA private plan marketplace is the Kaiser Family Foundation's estimate that state marketplaces have enrolled just 35%  of the "potential marketplace population." 28 million are eligible; 9.9 million have enrolled.

That stat is easy to misinterpret, though, in that the "potential eligible population" encompasses those who earn too much to qualify for subsidies -- including those who buy plans off-exchange. Taking off-exchange buyers into account*, probably about 17 million of Kaiser's 28 million "potential" enrollees are currently insured in the individual market.

Subtracting about 2.5 million who are in "grandfathered" or "grandmothered" pre-ACA plans, perhaps 14.5 million are in the unified risk pools that insurers who participate in the state marketplaces must establish for all their customers in each state who are enrolled in ACA-compliant plans.

Spotlight on the subsidy-eligible

What about the percentage of potentially subsidizable marketplace customers reached thus far? They're the real target market of the marketplaces. If you earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies, there's little reason** to buy your plan via an exchange.

The ACA's invisible deductible discounts

The healthcare Twittersphere was riveted yesterday by Robert Pear's spotlight on Harvard professors up in arms about comparatively modest deductibles and copays added to their excellent health plan.

The main underlying story, as Adrianna McIntyre pointed out, is that cost-shifting to employees is accelerating in employer-sponsored insurance, driven in part by the ACA's Cadillac tax on the most generous plans.

There's a second story, however, in Pear's use of the ACA exchanges as a foil to highlight Harvard employees' relative privilege. Pear contrasted the Harvard plan's 91% actuarial value with that of a silver ACA plan, which he said "typically" covers just 70% of the average user's medical costs. As I pointed out yesterday, only about 20% of silver plan buyers get plans with an AV of 70%. For the rest, income-based Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) raises the AV -- to 94%, 87% or 73%, depending on the buyer's household income. Available stats indicate that over 60% of silver plan buyers are at the AV 87% or 94% levels.

The broader point here is that the apparent prevalence of high deductibles on the ACA exchanges is somewhat misleading. As has been widely reported, bronze plans single-person deductibles average over $5,000, and silver plans (unenhanced by CSR) close to $3,000. Moreover,if you take a spin on the shop-arounds offered by Healthcare.gov and most state exchanges, the first price quotes you'll see are for bronze plans with deductibles in the $5,000-6,600 range, since available plans are most often displayed sorted by premium, lowest first.

Can the ACA exchanges steer customers away from bad choices?

An important feature on Healthcare.gov -- improved for the new open season, I believe -- could steer significant numbers of users toward plans best suited to their needs -- and perhaps point a way towards solving the "auto-renewal" problem, whereby existing plan holders may face steep price hikes if they fail to comparison -shop.

The feature in question is addressed to those buyers who are eligible for Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies, which lower plan deductibles and out-of-pockets costs for lower-income buyers -- but only if they buy silver-level plans, which will cost them significantly more per month in premiums than bronze-level plans.

Lower income buyers who choose bronze plans, which have lower premiums, can forfeit thousands of dollars' worth of CSR benefits. Fortunately, the vast majority of CSR-eligible buyers do seem to have found their way to silver, notwithstanding premiums that can be tens of dollars per month higher for individuals and over $100 per month more for families.

Dave Chandra, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a Certified Application Counselor, tells me that this year, if an applicant who qualifies for CSR takes steps toward buying a bronze plan (or, less probably, gold or platinum), a prominent pop-up message will warn her that she is eligible for CSR and will forfeit it if she proceeds. Here it is:

Is health insurance worth the money? Would you do without it?

A rigorous study* of the effects of health reform in Massachusetts since its 2006 launch yielded powerful evidence that the state's expansion of access to health insurance improved health and reduced mortality, particularly among poorer citizens. Adrianna McIntyre summarizes the core finding:

Benjamin Sommers, Sharon Long, and Katherine Baicker estimate that overall mortality in Massachusetts declined 2.9 percent relative to control counties between 2007 and 2010; mortality amenable to health care declined 4.5 percent. This translates to one death prevented for every 830 people who gain insurance, and the effects were larger in counties with low income and low pre-reform insurance rates—the counties we would expect to be most favorably impacted by reform.

Health economists, as is their wont, have put  (tentative) price tags on lives saved.  The ever-humane Harold Pollack pegged the cost-per-life at $3.3 million, adding the essential caveat:

WSJ hits ACA from the left

Good reporters at the Wall Street Journal continue to bust the ACA's chops.  The likes of Louise Radnofsky, Amy Schatz, Timothy Martin and now Leslie Scism, who's been covering insurance for at least 15 years (and is also a news editor), are not going to get their facts wrong. But it remains fair to wonder whether the Murdoch-era news editorial regime is shaping the stories' emphasis [UPDATE: I have spoken to someone at the Journal, whose word I trust, who assures me that editors area not imposing a political agenda on reporters. I regret speculating about motive without information.]

Today, Scism and Martin spotlight something that has in truth troubled me as I explore offerings on HealthCare.gov and ValuePenguin:  the prevalence of high deductibles, particularly in bronze plans:

As enrollment picks up on the HealthCare.gov website, many people with modest incomes are encountering a troubling element of the federal health law: deductibles so steep they may not be able to afford the portion of medical expenses that insurance doesn't cover.
The average individual deductible for what is called a bronze plan on the exchange—the lowest-priced coverage—is $5,081 a year, according to a new report on insurance offerings in 34 of the 36 states that rely on the federally run online marketplace.