VanceCare without Legislation

Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up

Which risk pool will you land in?

In a recent post, I argued that JD Vance’s rendition of Trump’s “concept of a plan” for healthcare was mainly a sketch of how a second Trump administration would “build on” (tear down) the ACA marketplace administratively, without repeal/replace legislation.

In brief, that would entail 1) rebuilding Trump 1.0’s alternative market of medically underwritten, ACA-noncompliant plans (so-called Short-Term Limited Duration, or STLD, plans), and 2) prompting states to implement measures like the waiver concepts put forward by Trump’s former CMS administrator, Seema Verma. These “concepts” included 1) replacing ACA premium subsidies with a lump-sum health savings account that could be used to pay premiums for any plan; 2) inviting states to restructure the federal premium subsidy as they wished; 3) allowing states to grant premium subsidies for ACA-noncompliant plans; and 4) creating state high risk pools. Options 1 and 3 could effectively convert the ACA-compliant marketplace as we know it into a high risk pool of sorts, and in combination with option 4, could create the multiple stratified risk pools that Vance described in followup comments.

Vance’s comments could also be read as an outline of repeal/replace legislation along the lines of the failed repeal/replace bills of 2017, which a Republican Congress would probably push through under a more authoritarian Trump 2.0 and a more MAGA Republican caucus than that of 2017-18. (In that case, Vance, the MAGA convert, would have to get on board with the massive Medicaid cuts, beginning with repeal of the ACA Medicaid expansion, which he criticized in the 2017 repeal bills.) But a second Trump presidency with Democrats in control of one house of Congress (if Trump 2.0 does not effectively neuter Congress by extra-Constitutional means) is as likely as a Republican trifecta. And should that scenario play out, Republicans in Congress are laying the groundwork for a third plank in an assault on the ACA marketplace as we now know it — that is, undermining a marketplace that provides plans with guaranteed issue, Essential Health Benefits, and no caps on coverage to virtually all enrollees in the individual market.

That third plank is blocking renewal of the marketplace premium subsidy enhancements originally provided by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in March 2021 and extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. ARPA not only reduced the percentage of income required to pay for a benchmark (second-cheapest) silver plan at every income level — it also removed the income cap on subsidies, which was 400% of the Federal Poverty Level ($51,040 for a single person and $104,800 for a family of four in 2021, when ARPA was implemented). Prior to ARPA, given the high cost of unsubsidized ACA-compliant insurance, the income cap left a major hole in the ACA’s “affordable care” promise — especially for older prospective enrollees, since premiums rise with age. The unaffordability of insurance for several million people dependent on the individual market was Republicans’ main cudgel against the ACA for years. Prospective enrollees who were subsidy-ineligible were the primary constituents for Trump’s alternative STLD market — a bad solution to a real problem.

---

While ACA premiums came in somewhat lower than expected when the market launched in advance of Plan Year 2014, they spiked in 2017 — a major correction triggered in part by expiration of the ACA’s temporary national reinsurance program. Average benchmark premiums rose 20% in 2017 — and then soared another 34% in 2018, in a market roiled by Republicans’ ACA repeal drive and Trump’s threatened cutoff of direct reimbursement of insurers for the Cost Sharing Reduction benefit attached to silver plans for low-income enrollees, which he executed in October 2017. (Starting in 2018, the value of CSR was priced directly into silver plans in most states.) The premium hikes decimated off-exchange and unsubsidized on-exchange enrollment in ACA-compliant plans. According to KFF estimates, unsubsidized enrollment in ACA-compliant plans dropped by essentially half from Q1 2016 to Q1 2019, from 6.7 million to 3.4 million. That created at least a potential market for Trump’s medically underwritten STLD plans — and would again, should the income cap on subsidy eligibility snap back into place (as it will in Plan Year 2026, if Congress does not act).

Premiums stabilized after 2018 — and the Trump administration can take some credit for that, as the administration invited states to establish their own reinsurance programs with partial federal funding (15 states did so by 2020) and, at insurers’ request, tightened the rules by which enrollees could obtain Special Enrollment Periods outside of Open Enrollment. Average benchmark premiums were slightly lower in 2024 ($477) than in 2018 ($481). This year, however, premiums are on course for a substantial increase, averaging about 6%, according to Charles Gaba’s tracking of rate requests. That’s barely noticed in a marketplace where more than 90% of enrollees are subsidized. It would be noticed if the income cap on subsidy eligibility were removed. Substantial increases in 2026 and thereafter would help a second Trump administration sell lightly regulated, medically underwritten alternatives.

Democrats are ramping up calls to extend the ARPA subsidy increases, as the pending expiration of the income tax cuts for individuals in the Republican-created 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provides some leverage. Prominent House Republicans are digging in against extending the ARPA subsidy boosts, characterizing them as “ massive taxpayer-funded handouts to the wealthy and large health insurance companies.” That’s pretty funny, considering that Republicans relentlessly hammered the ACA in pre-ARPA years for leaving those with incomes over 400% FPL high and dry. In any case, most post-ARPA enrollment growth is in the 100-150% FPL income bracket (which the statement cited above also decries) — and almost three quarters of those 2024 enrollees* would be in Medicaid if ten states (including big enchiladas Texas and Florida) were not still refusing to enact the ACA Medicaid expansion. Since Medicaid is cheaper, Medicaid expansion should be a top priority of purportedly budget-conscious Republicans.

Republican opponents of ARPA subsidy expansion are leaning heavily on a paper by Brian Blase, formerly a special assistant to Trump’s National Economic Counsel, alleging rampant overpayment of subsidies in the ACA marketplace. Blase does have a legitimate complaint in the recent explosion of unauthorized enrollment and plan-switching by unscrupulous ACA brokers. That fraud was stimulated in part by ARPA’s zeroing out of premiums for benchmark coverage for enrollees with income under 150% FPL (currently $21,870 for an individual), in combination with an administrative rule enacted in early 2022 that allows not only year-round enrollment to people below that threshold, but also a monthly Special Enrollment Period (SEP), enabling endless plan-switching. While I agree with Blase that that monthly SEP should be eliminated, and that CMS needs to act aggressively to quell broker fraud (as it appears to be doing), Blase attacks the subsidy enhancements with more dubious claims fraud in ACA enrollees’ income estimates — that is, raising or lowering income estimates to maximize subsidies (or access them at all). To those claims, I responded in detail here. The TLDR:

1) Most of the Post-ARPA enrollment increase in the ACA marketplace, as well as most of the increase at incomes where Blase alleges fraud is concentrated, is in states that have refused to enact the ACA Medicaid expansion, where most adults who estimate their incomes below 100% FPL get no government help at all. If substantial numbers of enrollees do in fact have incomes below 100% FPL, the solution is to…enact the ACA Medicaid expansion. People with income below 100% FPL should not be left with no access to affordable coverage.

2) ACA subsidies are based on an estimate of future income, which is inherently uncertain, especially for people at low incomes, who often work uncertain hours, change jobs, are self-employed, or depend on tips. Mismatches between income reported to the IRS and income projected in ACA applications probably have as much to do with inaccuracies in tax reporting as with inaccurate income projections in the ACA application. As for mismatches between income data based on ACA enrollment and data from the Census Bureau’s consumer surveys, those, like mismatches between IRS data and survey data, are perpetual.

3) Blase misreads CMS figures regarding former Medicaid enrollees, disenrolled in the post-pandemic “Medicaid unwinding,” who enrolled in the ACA marketplace in 2024. In HealthCare.gov states, according to CMS tracking, about a third of Medicaid disenrollees enrolled in the marketplace — not 70%, as Blase claims.

CMS needs to stop the broker fraud; should probably end the monthly SEP (though not year-round first-time enrollment for those with income under 150% FPL); and perhaps ramp up income checks on enrollees who may be underestimating their income (as opposed to overestimating it to get over the 100 % FPL threshold). Killing the ARPA subsidies to quell broker fraud would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But of course that baby — affordable insurance for those who lack access to affordable employer-sponsored health insurance — is a perpetual target for Republicans. And killing the ARPA subsidy boosts would further another core Republican goal — undermining the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

- - -

* In 2024, 6.9 million marketplace enrollees reported income in the 100-138% FPL range. In the broader 100-150% FPL category, 9,407,463 enrolled in 2024. The 100-138% FPL bracket was not reported in 2021, the last pre-ARPA year. From 2021 to 2024, enrollment in the 100-150% FPL bracket increased from 3.8 million to 9.4 million. That’s an increase of 5.5 million, more than half of the total increase of 9.4 million from 2021 to 2024. See the Marketplace OEP Public Use Files. To compare all-state totals at 100-150% FPL for 2021 and 2024 I excluded Idaho, which did not provide income breakouts to CMS in 2021.

Thanks for reading xpostfactoid! Subscribe for free:

A caveat about curtailing short-term limited duration health plans

 Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up! 

It’s generally a good thing when the Biden administration repeals a Trump-era administrative rule. Under current ACA marketplace conditions, a rule proposed by HHS, Treasury and the Department of Labor to restore a three-month term limit on so-called Short Term, Limited Duration (STLD) health plans is a good thing. In a rule finalized in August 2018, the Trump administration extended the allowable duration of such plans to a year, renewable for up to three years, creating an alternative market to the ACA-compliant individual market.

STLD plans by legal definition are not insurance and not subject to regulation by the ACA, HIPAA, the No Surprises Act, or the law mandating parity between physical and mental health coverage (MHPAEA). STLD plans are medically underwritten, meaning that applicants with pre-existing conditions can be charged more, denied coverage altogether, or offered coverage with the pre-existing condition excluded. These plans do not have to cover the ACA’s Essential Health Benefits and often exclude drug coverage and mental health care. They often have no provider network - -instead, they set their own rates in payment to medical providers and thus leave enrollees subject to extensive balance billing — which is still possible, as these plans are not subject to the No Surprises Act, which began protecting people in ACA-compliant plans in 2022. (In many markets, however, United HealthCare does offer STLD plans that have a provider network.)

For the Trump administration, which inherited Republicans’ dead-end opposition to and demonization of everything ACA, STLD plans represented a kind of ideal, harking back to the Shangri-la of the pre-ACA individual market, in which plans without restrictive provider networks (and with coverage limitations similar to those of STLD plans) cost lucky, healthy enrollees considerably less than unsubsidized ACA-compliant plans would later cost. Seema Verma, Trump’s CMS director, lionized “choice” — a market teeming with lightly regulated options offering very partial coverage — and that is what the Trump administration created. Verma even floated ACA “waiver concepts” inviting the states to seek approval for providing federal subsidies for ACA-noncompliant plans.

Trading out-of-pocket cost protection for network adequacy in the ACA marketplace

Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up! 

Bronze sometimes works

In a prior post, I raised concern that the percentage of ACA marketplace enrollees eligible for strong Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies who access that valuable benefit by selecting silver plans has not increased significantly since the American Rescue Plan Act of March 2021 made benchmark silver plans much more affordable. (CSR is available only with silver plans.)

This despite the fact that ARPA rendered the benchmark (second cheapest) silver plan free for enrollees with income up to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level and costing no more than about $45/month for a single enrollee with income up to 200% FPL. While CSR takeup did improve modestly in 2022, it slipped in 2023 — to its lowest level ever for enrollees with income up to 150% FPL (80.2%) and to its second-lowest for enrollees in the 150-200% FPL range.

ACA marketplace enrollment may be up 45% in the pandemic era

Dear 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!

CMS announced yesterday that enrollment through December 15 in ACA marketplace plans on HealthCare.gov, the federal exchange serving 33 states, is up 18% year-over year. That’s on top of a 27% year-over-year increase in HealthCare.gov states last year.

Enrollment growth in the pandemic era has been slower in the 18 states (including D.C.) that run their own state-based exchanges (SBEs). Last year, SBE enrollment growth was about 8%, and the all-state total increase (HealthCare.gov + SBEs) was 21%. If the 18% growth rate for HealthCare.gov states holds through the end of the Open Enrollment Period, and the ratio of SBE growth to HealthCare.gov growth matches last year’s, then total enrollment growth as of the end of OEP 2023 will come in at about 13.7%.

That would peg total enrollment as of the end of OEP at about 16.5 million. Charles Gaba, who’s been tracking SBE enrollment tallies as they come in (they lag HealthCare.gov’s), projects a range of 16.4-16.9 million (plus 1.1 million in New York and Minnesota’s Basic Health Programs).

A few notes about this continued strong enrollment growth:

The ACA as pandemic safety net, Chapter 2 (2021)

Subscribe (free) to xpostfactoid

As xpostfactoid is devoted mainly to tracking the implementation and metamorphosis of the Affordable Care Act, for the past two years I've focused mainly on ACA programs' performance as a safety net during the pandemic, as millions of people lost job-based health coverage for varying lengths of time. 

In 2020, the uninsured rate appears to have remained basically flat, though pandemic-related surveying challenges rendered Census and NHIS findings somewhat tentative. In 2021, the uninsured rate may actually prove to have downticked a bit, once the data is in. By kludgy American standards, the health insurance safety net -- Medicaid and the ACA marketplace -- have performed well, bolstered by several doses of emergency legislation and administrative action:

• The Families First Act, which added six percentage points to the federal government's share of Medicaid costs -- contingent on states pausing Medicaid "redeterminations" and disenrollments for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency (still in effect).
• Belated ACA Medicaid expansions that went live in Idaho, Utah and Nebraska in 2020 and in Oklahoma and Missouri in 2021.

At healthinsurance.org: Closeup of the ACA enrollment surge of 2021-2022

At healthinsurance.org, I have a post up this morning reviewing the surge in ACA marketplace enrollment  triggered by the pandemic and further spurred by the major boost to premium subsidies provided through 2022 in  the American Rescue Plan Act enacted last March.  

Long story short: from mid-December 2019 to mid-December 2021, plan selections during the annual Open Enrollment Period increased by 29% in the 33 states currently using HealthCare.gov, and most likely by about 25% for all states (final enrollment figures for the OEP are usually released in March). 

• Two thirds of the enrollment gains are in states that have refused to enact the ACA Medicaid expansion.
• Some new enrollees in those states may have climbed over the 100% FPL minimum income threshold for ACA subsidy eligibility. 
• Many new enrollees are getting free silver plans with strong Cost Sharing Reduction 
• Enrollment increases in the current OEP build on and extend the gains during the emergency Special Enrollment Period that ran from Feb. 15 through August 15 in HealthCare.gov states.
• The strong enrollment gains should compel Democrats to extend the ARPA subsidy boosts, which expire after this year.

I hope you'll give it a read.

Subscribe (free) to xpostfactoid

Talk to me if you became self-employed during the pandemic

Last week I noted that the subsidy increases in the ACA marketplace provided last spring by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) were well-timed to catch a surge in self-employment and small business formation triggered by the pandemic.

Thanks to the subsidy boosts, the ACA marketplace is much closer than ever before to fulfilling the ACA's foundational promise of freeing Americans from "job lock" -- dependence on employers for health insurance. 

I would like to speak to people who have become self-employed or started businesses since the pandemic struck and looked to the ACA marketplace (or Medicaid) for health insurance -- successfully or unsuccessfully. I would also welcome hearing from people who were already insured through the marketplace and experienced changes once the ARPA subsidies were enacted in April/May 2021 (or July, for those who qualified for free silver plans because they had received unemployment insurance income this year).

If you'd like to tell me your experience, please email me: adsprung at gmail. Please refer anyone whose experience you think might be relevant. Thanks!

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

Putting the "Affordable" in the Affordable Care Act: A role for the IRS

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

 After the boost to ACA marketplace subsidies enacted as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the largest remaining bar to affordable coverage for all but undocumented Americans (who are barred from any government help for coverage) may be the affordability threshold for employer-sponsored insurance. It's ridiculously high. The IRS can provide some relief now, without portentous rulemaking.

The ACA defines employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) as affordable if a plan providing Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) as defined by the ACA costs less than 9.5% of income. That baseline is adjusted annually to account for inflation in premiums in excess of inflation in the consumer price index and currently stands at 9.83% of income.  MEC is equivalent to bronze-level coverage in the ACA marketplace, which typically means a single-person deductible in the $7,000 range. Those for whom an employer's offer of insurance is deemed affordable are ineligible for ACA marketplace subsidies (though not ineligible for Medicaid). KFF estimates that 3.5 million uninsured people are in this category.

ACA 2.0 -- how's it going so far?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

On a temporary basis, the health insurance-related provisions of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) signed into law on March 11 moved the Affordable Care Act much closer to living up to its name. Major boosts to premium subsidies effective through 2022 at every income level -- including an absolute cap on premiums for a benchmark plan as a percentage of income for every legally present person who lacks affordable access to other insurance -- credibly put coverage within financial reach of everyone motivated to seek it, albeit with more complexity of process and exposure to out-of-pocket costs than a truly universal system would require. That's a BFD, as a former vice president might say.

The changes became effective immediately and retroactively --  three months after the end of Open Enrollment for 2021 and with an emergency Special Enrollment Period still in progress. So, almost six weeks in, how's it going? A few notes below on implementation, benefit design, and future prospects.

• Fixing a plane in mid-flight (as the emergency SEP is effectively an Open Enrollment period), federal and sometimes state governments have moved with impressive swiftness. While subsidy boosts for those already enrolled were retroactive to Jan. 1, and would be credited eventually by the IRS, HealthCare.gov got the new subsidy schedule loaded on April 1, enabling enrollees to update their applications and get the increase subsidies applied to their monthly payments as of May 1. Most of the 15 state-based marketplaces have followed suit, or set a date by which it will be done (see Charles Gaba's chart at point #2 here). On April 9, the IRS issued guidance enabling 2020 enrollees who underestimated their income and so owed back excess tax credits to take advantage of an ARPA provision forgiving that payback, announcing that the form that details tax credits paid out does not have to be filed at all, and that the IRS will credit back excess APTC already paid back without any further action from the tax filer. 

Can free silver close much of the "upper coverage gap" in nonexpansion states?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

Update, 5/4/21: New data via the CMS state-level public use files for 2021 shows that enrollment at100-138% FPL in nonexpansion states increased dramatically in 2021. See this post for an update.

The principle harm wrought by states that refused to enact the ACA Medicaid expansion after the Supreme Court rendered expansion optional is well known. More than 2 million people with incomes below 100% the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in the fourteen states that have not yet enacted the expansion are uninsured and eligible neither for Medicaid nor for ACA marketplace subsidies, according to KFF estimates.

A secondary, less recognized harm is imposed on nonexpansion state residents whom the ACA intended to be at the upper end of eligibility for Medicaid, those with incomes in the 100-138% FPL range. In nonexpansion states, residents in this income category are eligible for marketplace subsidies. Until the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was enacted last month, a benchmark silver plan with strong Cost Sharing Reduction would cost enrollees in this income range 2% of income, or a maximum of $29 per month for a single person with an annual income of 138% FPL (currently $17,609). Thanks to ARPA, benchmark silver is now free for enrollees in this income range (and up to 150% FPL).

On paper, even the pre-ARPA offering doesn't sound like a bad deal. The actuarial value of silver in this income bracket is 94%; the average deductible is around $200, and the average annual out-of-pocket maximum is about $1100. But takeup, as I noted in my last post, has been poor. Recent KFF estimates of the uninsured in this income range in nonexpansion states, set against actual enrollment at this income level in 2020, suggest that only about 53% of those eligible have actually enrolled. Take Florida out of the equation, and the takeup rate drops to 43%. 

In this post I'd like to flip the script: what if we make Florida the equation, rather than taking it out? Something in the state's marketplace is going relatively right, and has since the launch of the ACA marketplace.  In Florida, to the extent KFF's estimates of the uninsured are on target, 72% of subsidy-eligible people in the 100-138% FPL bracket are enrolled. That exceeds takeup at 100-138% FPL in the other 11 nonexpansion states tracked by KFF* by almost 30 percentage points. If those states attained Florida takeup rates, the ranks of the uninsured in this category would drop by over 700,000 -- about half of them in Texas (Figure 1).

Is the U.S. uninsured rate at an all-time low?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

Enough states have reported Medicaid tallies through February to posit that the pandemic has increased enrollment by more than ten million nationally since February 2020. Adjusting for the usual difference* between CMS's official totals (now posted through November**) and my sample below (based on state monthly reports), year-over-year enrollment growth since February 2020 is likely about 14.8%, and total enrollment likely stands at about 81.7 million. A quarter of the U.S. population is enrolled in Medicaid.

I don't think we've fully fathomed the effect on access to health insurance of the pandemic, the battered and flawed but still functioning and funded ACA programs in place as the pandemic hit, and pandemic relief measures.  Consider...

The Families First Act effectively required states to pause Medicaid disenrollments for the duration of the Covid-19 emergency, and enrollment will continue to grow until that moratorium ends.***  Enrollment growth among those rendered eligible by the ACA Medicaid expansion is close to 30%. In the ACA marketplace, average monthly enrollment in 2021 will probably exceed 2019 enrollment by at least a million, perhaps more, spurred by extended Special Enrollment Periods and subsidies enhanced by the American Rescue Plan Act. As the population ages, Medicare enrollment grows by about 1.5 million yearly. Meanwhile, the huge job losses triggered by the pandemic appear to have had only a modest effect on employer-sponsored insurance: enrollment through September was down by just 2-3 million, according to a KFF estimate.

Will 60-64 year-olds have a choice between Medicare and Obamacare? What will that look like?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

I turned 62 recently. Yesterday, for the first time, I took seriously the possibility that my wife and I might be enrolled in Medicare before we turn 65.

According to the Wall Street Journal's Stephanie Amour and Kristina Peterson, the Democrats' next healthcare initiative, envisioned for spring 2022, is likely to contain

measures to reduce drug prices and expand health coverage, lawmakers said. Proposals to expand Medicare eligibility from age 65 to 60 and to enable the federal government to negotiate drug prices in the health program for seniors—both of which President Biden supported on the campaign trail—are also likely to be included.

I can think of a lot of reasons these measures -- paired so that the prescription drug savings will finance the expanded eligibility -- may not happen.  But the odds that they will be enacted are not negligible. Democrats' success holding together to pass the $1.9 trillion Covid relief package have made a lot of bold initiatives seem possible.

If Democrats do manage to drop the Medicare eligibility age, they are also likely to make permanent the major increases to premium subsidies in the ACA marketplace enacted through 2022 in the Covid relief bill, the American Rescue Plan Act. And the two initiatives could overlap -- or clash -- to some degree.

The possibility of passing all of the above raises questions: will Medicare be offered to 60-65 year-olds on the same terms as Medicare for people over age 65?  Will enrollment delayed past age 60 be penalized on the same terms as enrollment delayed past age 65 at present? If enrollment at 60-65 is optional, will those who lack access to employer-sponsored insurance also be eligible for subsidized ACA marketplace coverage? -- will they have a choice between the two programs?

If Medicare is indeed subsidized as heavily at ages 60-64 as at age 65 and over, and if enrollment is optional, and if the ARPA subsidy schedule for the ACA marketplace (or something close to it) becomes permanent, some 60-65 year-olds will have a tough choice to make between Medicare and marketplace coverage. 

Broadly speaking, those with incomes up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) will likely find lower costs in the marketplace -- if they're not dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Those with incomes over 400% FPL will likely favor Medicare.  In between is a gray area, with tradeoffs that are charted and discussed below.

An American Rescue Plan benefit you'll have to wait for

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

UPDATE: On April 9, the IRS solved the problem described, announcing that 2020 marketplace enrollees who received APTC do not have to file Form 8962. 

The Internal Revenue Service announced today that taxpayers with excess APTC for 2020 are not required to file Form 8962, Premium Tax Credit, or report an excess advance Premium Tax Credit repayment on their 2020 Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR, Schedule 2, Line 2, when they file.

Those who filed prior to the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act and paid back excess APTC do not have to file an amended return; the IRS will reimburse them.

----

In addition to increasing premium subsidies for 2021 and 2022 in the ACA marketplace, the American Rescue Plan Act signed into law by President Biden on March 11 provides an important benefit to 2020 marketplace enrollees. Section 9662 of ARPA stipulates that those enrollees who underestimated their income and so would normally have to pay back some the Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTC) received will not have to pay back the excess APTC. 

That includes people who estimated their incomes at below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, the cap for APTC eligibility, but ended up with a declared income above that threshold. Normally, they would have to pay back all APTC received. This year, they owe nothing.

That is not a trivial benefit. According to IRS estimates,* in 2019 3.2 million tax filing households paid back a portion of the APTC they received in 2018, with paybacks totaling $4.4 billion, or about $1,375 per household.  Estimating 1.7 enrollees per filing household** suggests payback of about $800 per enrollee. Similarly, the CBO report*** on the costs of ARPA estimated that APTC forgiveness for 2020 (when total enrollment was nearly identical to that of 2018) would cost $4.7 billion in 2021. (See Charles Gaba's detailed analysis here.)

The American Rescue Plan Act makes free coverage available to many below 100% FPL in nonexpansion states

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

An odd provision  the American Rescue Plan Act that President Biden signed yesterday provides that anyone who receives any unemployment insurance income this year will be deemed to have income of no more than 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), qualifying them for a free silver plan in the ACA marketplace. 

Silver plans at that income come with the highest Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR), raising the plan's actuarial value to 94%, which translates to an average deductible of about $200 and an average cap on annual out-of-pocket costs of about $1100. The plan is free because ARPA zeroes out premiums for a benchmark silver plan at incomes up to 150% FPL.

When I first read about this provision, I thought that maybe it was intended in part as one more way to chip away at the "coverage gap" in the twelve remaining states that have refused to enact the ACA Medicaid expansion (rendered optional to states by the Supreme Court in 2012). In those states, eligibility for ACA marketplace subsidies begins at 100% FPL, and families with incomes below that threshold get no help obtaining coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that about 2.2 million people in nonexpansion states (chief among them Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina) are in the coverage gap.

The ACA as it should have been -- sort of, for a while at least

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

Strictly speaking, by my my lights, "the ACA as it should have been" would be "Medicare for all who want it": a public plan paying Medicare rates to providers, accepted by all providers who accept Medicare, with competing private plans paying similar rates to providers and probably offering somewhat more generous coverage as a tradeoff for limitations in provider choice. These plans would be available to all, including those with access to employer-sponsored insurance. Oh, and add an OOP cap -- a cap on annual out-of-pocket costs -- to the public plan -- as we should do for traditional Medicare.

In the political universe we're bound by, however, "the ACA as it should have been" denotes the ACA more or less as is, but with subsidies generous enough to make coverage in the ACA marketplace truly affordable to most Americans who lack access to other insurance -- excluding (always, alas) undocumented immigrants.  

And that is about to happen! -- temporarily at least -- when Biden signs the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 later this week (see Section 9661).   It's an eye-rubbing moment for progressives who've dreamed fruitlessly for a decade of an Affordable Care Act offering affordable coverage to almost all comers.