Scoping out a Medicare buy-in

Hillary Clinton's raft of healthcare policy proposals includes enabling 55-64 year-olds to "opt in" to Medicare. No detail is provided.

I have a piece in progress that looks at a variant of a Medicare buy-in. This is a scratch-pad post, to help me clarify for myself who might or might not benefit.

When Clinton first verbally expressed a willingness to consider a Medicare buy-in, Avalere Health scoped out the potential market, but they did it for a wider age group, 50-64, as Clinton first mentioned 50 or 55 as a threshold.  Avalere's Caroline Pearson and Chris Sloan were kind enough to provide me with a breakout of their calculations for 55-64 year-olds. As it's based on the 2014 American Community Survey, I have updated where possible, as explained in notes below.

Presumably the buy-in would not be offered to roughly 24 million people in the 55-64 age group who have access to employer-sponsored insurance -- including retirees with ESI, whom Kaiser estimated to number 5.3 million in 2012.  I doubt there's a single member of Congress, Senator or potential president other than Bernie Sanders with a more than theoretical interest in shaking up employer-sponsored insurance

The buy-in would be open to the uninsured in the 55-64 age band, who currently number about 3.4 million,* and to those who currently get their insurance in the individual market, of whom there are probably a bit over 5 million. That includes a shade under 3 million in the ACA marketplace, and probably another two million-plus buying off-exchange. About 2.4 million marketplace enrollees in the age group are subsidized, if. the marketplace income breakouts reported by CMS apply proportionately to this age group.**

What if a public option were added to the ACA marketplace now?

Aetna's sudden sharp cutback in its participation in the ACA marketplace has renewed discussion of how the marketplace might be stabilized. The most obvious fix is to boost the subsidies and thus lower subsidized  enrollees' premiums and out-of-pocket costs. At present, Kaiser estimates that about 64% of people eligible for subsidies are enrolled in marketplace coverage. Many of the subsidy-eligible uninsured find the offered coverage unaffordable. If the marketplace were attracting 90% of those eligible the risk pools would be much deeper. That would in turn moderate the pending price hikes for the unsubsidized.

The premium hikes and large-insurer pullbacks have also renewed calls to create the public option -- a government-run plan competing on equal terms with private insurers in the marketplace. In the runup to the ACA's passage, progressives regarded the public option as a linchpin, an essential means of keeping private insurers from price-gouging. Its absence from the final bill was regarded as a major defeat.

What would be the likely effects of adding a national public option now, if it were politically possible? A few points:

1. Before risk adjustment and reinsurance are factored in, ACA-compliant plans were calculated to have paid out an average 110% of premiums collected in medical claims in 2014 and, for  the entire individual market 4th-largest health insurer HCSC* in 2015,, 117% .  Those negative loss ratios have driven average weighted average premium increases of 24% this year (though the increases will likely prove lower for the plans most people will buy). Those losses have led to exits and pullbacks that, according to Avalere Health, will leave 55% of rating areas nationally with two or fewer competitors (though that number disproportionately includes low-population areas, and so most buyers will probably have more choices).  In many regions, if a public option managed to significantly underprice the competition, it might well become the only option.

Forecast: Prices paid for health plans in the ACA marketplace to rise 12-15% in 2017

According to Charles Gaba's tracking of health insurers' rate requests for 2017 in the individual market, health insurers have thus far requested a weighted average rate increase of 22%. That's based on reporting from insurers serving 73% of current enrollees.

Rates requested are different from rates approved, however. And approved rates, weighted according to insurers' market share in the previous year, are different from the average rates that people (and the federal government, via subsidies) actually pay.  That's because enrollees gravitate toward the cheapest plans at each metal level, which pay the same percentage of costs as more expensive plans in the same metal level.

According to Gaba and HHS, here's how rates shook out in 2015, 2016 and thus far for 2017:

Silver plans to be available for less in ACA marketplace in 2017

Certainly not for everyone. And certainly not for the federal government, which foots the bulk of the premium bill for most marketplace enrollees. But for many and perhaps most subsidized buyers, a silver plan will available for less than they paid in 2016 (or would have paid, had they enrolled).

That's my takeaway from an Avalere Health analysis of rate request data in eight states plus Washington D.C., released last week.

In ACA marketplace, low-hanging fruit is more than half picked

My long two-pointed ladder's sticking through a tree

Toward heaven still,

And there's a barrel that I didn't fill

Beside it, and there may be two or three*

Apples I didn't pick upon some bough.

Goddamn it, don't stop apple-picking now!

(Apologies, Robert Frost)

* or 7 or 8 million

Gearing up for the ACA's third enrollment season, HHS has released an analysis estimating 10.5 million uninsured individuals are eligible to buy private plans in the ACA marketplace. In a separate brief, HHS forecasts that between 2.8 and 3.9 million from this pool  will select marketplace plans in 2016 -- which sounds low until you pick through the numbers a bit.

HHS estimates that 48% of the 10.5 million live in households with incomes under 250% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) -- qualifying them for both premium subsidies and Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies. Another 30% have incomes between 250% and 400% FPL and so "may qualify" for premium subsidies. But not all of them do.*  And buyers in that range, who are expected to pay at least 8% of income for the benchmark second-cheapest silver plan in their region, have proved a tough sell to date.

About three quarters of all current marketplace enrollees and 88% of subsidized enrollees -- about 7.4 million -- (as of June 30) have incomes under 250% FPL*  If half of the estimated 5 million marketplace-eligible uninsured people with incomes under 250% FPL enroll in plans, and if they constitute about 75% of new enrollees (as they do of current ones), that suggests 3.3 million new enrollees -- almost exactly the midpoint in HHS's forecast range.

Hey, Jeb! Who's getting those "huge new subsidies" under the ACA?

Touting his new ACA replacement plan, which would wipe out ACA coverage rules for insurers and replace means-tested ACA private plan subsidies with tax credits for catastrophic coverage available at any income level, Bush asserted:

Obamacare created huge new subsidies for low-income Americans, but it left middle-income Americans facing higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs.

There are some grains of truth to that.  People who 1) get their insurance in the individual market,  2) earn too much to qualify for subsidies (that is, over 300-400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)), and 3) don't have pre-existing conditions pay more  than they would have pre-ACA.* You could argue, too, that the ACA has driven up out-of-pocket medical costs, if not premiums, for people with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) -- or at least that it will do so once the Cadillac Tax kicks in, if it ever does. The claim is highly contestable, though, as neither premiums nor out-of-pocket costs have risen faster in ESI than in pre-ACA years and myriad factors are at work. Really, it's simply too early to tell.

But Bush's statement, like most Republican claims to speak in defense of "the middle class," reveals a top-heavy view of what "middle class" means. His sneer at "huge subsidies" is also a sneer at huge swaths of the U.S. population -- where the uninsured are concentrated.

A recent Census report** indicates that in 2014 the ACA caused large drops in the uninsured rate among Americans with incomes under 100% FPL ( a 4.2 point drop, from 23.5% to 19.3%), 100-199% FPL (a 5.3 point drop) and 200-299% FPL (4.2 points.).

Some low-income ACA shoppers bought gold plans*

* But not enough to cover Avalere's estimate of CSR-forfeiters

On August 19, Avalere Health published an analysis spotlighting ACA private plan buyers who failed to access the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies that are available to applicants with incomes up to 250% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) -- but only if they buy silver plans. Avalere estimated that about 27% of CSR-eligible buyers forfeited the subsidy by buying plans in metal levels other than silver -- usually the cheapest bronze plans, which carry very high deductibles.

In a response, I argued that Avalere had somewhat lowballed CSR takeup by overestimating the number of private plan buyers who were eligible for CSR. The numerator of the equation is not in doubt: an ACA enrollment update published by CMS in June pegged total CSR enrollment at 5,850,936 as of March 31. But the denominator (CSR-eligibles) is based on extrapolations from incomplete income breakouts of ACA private plan customers, provided by HHS in March for healthcare.gov states alone. Avalere assumed that 8.1 million of those still enrolled as of March 31 were CSR-eligible; I estimate that about 7.7 million enrollees were eligible, and that therefore, about 76% of CSR-eligibles accessed the benefit.

The difference stems from two factors: what you assume about the roughly 6% of enrollees for whom income data was unavailable, and how you estimate the percentage of CSR-eligibles in state-based exchanges, for whom income data was not included in federal enrollment reports. I assume that income distribution in the SBMs is closer to that of those healthcare.gov states that accepted the Medicaid expansion than to the overall average for healthcare.gov states, which is dominated by states that refused to expand Medicaid.

CSR-eligibles who bought neither silver nor bronze

I was struck today by additional evidence that Avalere somewhat overestimated the number of private plan holders who are eligible for CSR. According to their analysis, 2.2 million plan holders renounced the benefit by buying non-silver plans. The assumption is that those who leave CSR on the table mostly buy bronze plans, which have lower premiums. But the total number of bronze plan buyers is a known quantity: 2,164,116.  And we know that bronze plan buyers are more concentrated at higher income levels. Among buyers eligible for any kind of subsidy (not all of whom were CSR-eligible), 19% bought bronze. Among those who earned too much to qualify for subsidies, 35% chose bronze.

A quibble with Avalere over CSR takeup

9/3/15: See update at bottom for Avalere's response to questions posed here 

I may have to "never mind" this post if I'm missing something basic, but...it seems to me that Avalere Health lowballed Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) takeup a little in an analysis released today.

Avalere's calculation is simple: 5.9 million buyers of private plans on ACA exchanges bought plans with Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies, available only to buyers with incomes under 250% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and only if they selected silver plans.  8.1 million buyers were eligible for CSR, according to Avalere; hence about 2.2 million left the benefit on the table; most of them probably brought bronze plans with sky-high deductibles. The CSR takeup rate comes to just 72.8%,

Avalere says that it derived these numbers from HHS's March enrollment report,which broke out enrollees by income level in the 37 states using healthcare.gov, and a CMS update released in June, which adjusted for attrition (mostly no-pays) as of March 31.

We know where the 5.9 million figure for those who accessed CSR came from: the June update, which reported 5,850,936 enrollees with CSR. But what about the denominator, the 8.1 million? That's trickier. We know there were 10,187,197 enrollees as of March 31. But how many were CSR-eligible?

As the ACA mandate bites harder, will a Bronze Age follow?

I have a post up at healthinsurance.org responding to a forecast by Investor's Business Daily reporter Jed Graham,to the effect that as the individual mandate clubs more people into the ACA exchanges, more low income shoppers will buy bronze plans.

Graham assumes that most of those who have remained uninsured have looked at what's on offer and decided it's too expensive, or that only bronze is affordable and that the sky-high bronze deductibles render those plans a poor value.  While that's doubtless true for some, I point to survey data indicating that large percentages of the still-uninsured don't know what's on offer.

I want to skip here to a somewhat fuller discussion of solutions Graham offers to what he calls "the bronze trap" in his just-released e-book, Obamacare is a Great Mess: A View of the Affordable Care Act Without Partisan Blinders & How to Fix It, which is well worth a read.

For ACA plan buyers, it's not the price, it's the price spread

There's good news and bad news in this forecast by Avalere Health of average premium increases in 2016 for health plans sold on ACA exchanges:

...premiums for the lowest and second lowest cost silver plans in the eight states analyzed will increase on average 4.5 percent and 1.0 percent respectively, compared to a 5.8 percent across all silver exchange plans. 

There was similar good news/bad news in HHS's report on actual premium increases from 2014 to 2015:

Premiums for the benchmark (second-lowest cost) silver plan will increase modestly, by 2 percent on average this year before tax credits, while premiums for the lowest-cost silver plan will increase on average by 5 percent. The plans offering the lowest prices have sometimes changed from 2014 to 2015, so consumers should shop around to find
the plan that best meets their needs and budget.

For ACA marketplaces, the near-poor have been the sweet spot

The just-released National Health Interview Survey for 2014 confirms that the chief beneficiaries of the ACA private plan marketplaces were those defined by the survey as "near-poor," with incomes between 100% and 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

The NHIS found that among near-poor adults aged 18-64 (those with incomes from 100-200% FPL),

the percentage who were uninsured decreased from 38.5% to 30.9%, the percentage with public coverage increased from 26.6% to 29.6%, and the percentage with private coverage increased from 36.4% to 41.2% between 2013 and 2014. 

In states that expanded Medicaid, those with incomes up to 138% FPL became Medicaid-eligible -- hence the substantial rise in those in this income group with public insurance. But the jump in private insurance is really substantial, By comparison, private coverage for adults 18-64 with incomes over 200% FPL rose  from 81.2% in 2013 to 83.9%, and for the poor, from 19.0% to 21.9%* (while public coverage for the poor rose from 42.4% to 46.6%).

Obamacare customers "stick with" healthcare.gov

Enrollment in private health plans on healthcare.gov seems to have been very sticky.  For the 37 states using healthcare.gov, the renewal rate for those who were enrolled in plans just prior to the start of open season for 2015 was over 90%..

Last week, Avalere Health published a study of renewal rates that found an average of 79% renewals among existing enrollees in private plans (so-called Qualified Health Plans, or QHPs) on healthcare.gov and 65% on the state exchanges. But Avalere tracked attrition from the end of the first open season, in April 2015, until the end of the second one, in March 2015.  The methodology was simple:

Why did Healthcare.gov outdraw the state exchanges in 2015?

Avalere Health has found, in a study of 2015 ACA private plan enrollment data, that healthcare.gov outperformed state exchanges on two measures: retention of 2014 enrollees and enrollment of new customers.

To explain the lower retention in states that ran their own exchanges, Avalere floats the possibility* that those states (all but one of which expanded Medicaid) may have had more churn into Medicaid than states using healthcare.gov (where over 70% of enrollees were in states that refused the Medicaid expansion). I'll cite some evidence below that many states that expanded Medicaid did not have low retention in the private plan market.  But I do think that Medicaid enrollment may partly explain the second discrepancy -- why state-based exchanges had lower private-plan enrollment growth in 2015 than states on healthcare.gov.